The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
American Midterm mid-morning
Most clear-eyed analysis I've found this morning of yesterday's midterm elections in the States is by Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard: Post Mortem: Why Republicans got shellacked in the midterms.
Republicans lost the House and probably the Senate because of Iraq, corruption, and a record of taking up big issues and then doing nothing on them. Of these, the war was by far the biggest factor. Unpopular wars trump good economies and everything else. President Truman learned this in 1952, as did President Johnson in 1968. Now, it was President Bush's turn, and since his name wasn't on the ballot, his party took the hit.
... But you have to give Rahm Emanuel, the House Democratic campaign chief, credit for recruiting an impressive group of candidates, including a few non-liberals like Brad Ellsworth in Indiana and Heath Shuler in North Carolina. The media, however, is exaggerating the number of these unconventional Democrats. They are a handful, and the pattern of moderate and conservative Democrats when they get to Washington is to pipe down.
Most interesting Canadian perspective in the National Post: Democratic surge could mean trade woes for Canada
Derek Burney, who was posted to Washington under Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney in 1989, said that on the issue of trade with Canada "there's not much good news" that can come from the election result because Democrats are more likely to bring a "protectionist" bent to their work in Congress, as opposed to Republicans who bring a "freer-trade mentality."
"Those lines are pretty blurry at the best of times, but despite the fact that Canadians seem to think that Democrats generally are closer to Canadians, on trade policy the situation is a bit different," said Burney, who organized Harper's transition to government after last January's federal election.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference American Midterm mid-morning:
In response to Burney's comments about the protectionist trade stance of Democrats, I don't remember the Republicans being too helpful on the softwood lumber or madcow disease trade issues. How about that whole border crossing issue? Also, wasn't there a Democratic president during that strong period of Canadian economic growth during the 90's built heavily on trade with the US?
Posted by: ALIO | 2006-11-08 8:57:12 AM
Now that the lying contest in the U.S. is nearly over and most of the best liars/winners announced ...
Let the scam contest begin!
Followed by a new round of nepotism ... followed by a few scandals, followed by revelations of new corruption, followed by exhibitions of incompetence and stupidity.
Just like in Canada!
Democracy in action ... no wonder Islam is winning.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-11-08 8:59:27 AM
Unfortunately, and sadly, you are right Duke.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-11-08 9:03:22 AM
Some people are very happy now and those are Defeatists and Rats themselves, Jihadists all over the world, Mullahs of Iran, idiot leftists, Osama Bin Laden and America haters.
Posted by: Winston | 2006-11-08 10:22:50 AM
Now that the Dems control Congress for the first time in 12 years free trade is going to take a hit.
The American Congress also holds the purse strings and has the sole power to wage war. Yes the American President can start a military action for 90 days and then the action is subject to Congressional review. Congress can then say Yea or Nay and end the action or defund it or both.
I'm reading on the American blogs about how losing the House will be bad for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but none of them seem to understand the effect this is going to have on America's political Allies or America's future ability to build coalitions to take military action abroad.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-11-08 10:23:15 AM
It will be interesting to see how the humbling of the Republicans resonates with Harper. He, like Bush, has had a foreign policy stance of "I'm right. You're wrong. F*ck you.". Harper made a good change recently when speaking at a Jewish dinner indicated support for Israel and yet spoke of a "viable Palestinian homeland". So maybe Harper's learning that foriegn policy isn't just black and white, right and wrong, us and them.
As far as Iraq goes, the Democrats will have realize that it is an AMERICAN mess, not Republican or Democrat. Just as Nixon inherited the Viet Nam mess from the Democrats, the Dems will inherit Iraq from Bush. There is no chance for "victory" there, whatever "victory" would be. They've created total chaos and devestation there - I hope they're stuck there for the next thrity years until it's rebuilt and stable, and that it costs them trillions of dollars. That will be the legacy of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rove.
Posted by: John Leningrad | 2006-11-08 10:31:12 AM
Harper speaking of a viable Palestinian homeland is nothing new.
The two-state solution been the stance of the Conservative party.
Only trouble is, the Palestinian voters keep installing regimes who offer only violent solutions.
The US will not be stuck in Iraq for the next 30 years ... it now appears next spring will be the turnover date.
Of course, to know any of this, a person would have to be attention to the facts, not just their own fears and prejudices.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-11-08 10:44:00 AM
Winston, I'm confused.
Your kind say 'they hate our way of life' but somehow the jihadists will be happy with the Democrats in power? I'm confused (probably because I have an intelligence you are sorrily lacking) and don't understand how if they hate the whole system why they would like the Dems??
Oh and btw Osama wanted Bush to go into Iraq you dumb fool. It proved his point about the Americans and renforced his position in the Muslim world.
I haven't been here in a while but it's nice to see people here at the ShotDumb remain as clueless and stupid as ever.
Special thanks to Ezra for providing you a place to come and display your ineptitude.
I'd ask that you people consider things like treasonous war profiteering in Iraq but you'd all sell the moon to the highest bidder so I don't expect you to understand it.
The world is complex. You are simple.
Posted by: Justin... | 2006-11-08 10:53:28 AM
I hope you're right about the Dems inheriting Iraq but I don't think you are.
When the Republicans inherited Vietnam they honoured America's commitment there as best they could and the Democrat Congress and Senate of the day were a completely different animal than what we have now.
I believe the Democrat Congress MUST cut and run in Iraq and Afghanistan because that is what their core voter base really wants to happen. I think a good many Democrat Freshman Congressman and Senators, as well as the old Guard, will not only have to live up to their rhetoric, they will enjoy and employ every nuance of it.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-11-08 10:54:06 AM
Can't grasp why all the fuss over the US midterm elections. It's doubtful anything anyone will notice will change between our two countries.
The Harper Conservatives will continue to deal with them on issue by issue, trading and making deals in a civil manner, just as any good neighbour would.
It doesn't benefit them or us to be sparring like the silly Liberals were wont to do motivated by political biased hatreds.
How would any nation react to that kind of treatment of their peoples' choice for governance?
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-08 10:56:21 AM
Time to bid farewell to Rumsfeld. Looks like he can't sidestep the fact that his failures have come home to roost in the form of a democrat congress.
Posted by: ALIO | 2006-11-08 11:11:54 AM
The Americans should go into self defence mode and withdraw all their forces from around the world. Choose their true allies carefully and let the rest go to rot. Forget this foreign aid bunk..let them eat cake! Let's the EU take the heat for a change.
Posted by: Frico | 2006-11-08 11:19:06 AM
I'll gladly give up a little bit of "free trade" in exchange for not having a fence along the border, not having warships in our Great Lakes, not needing a passport to enter the USA, or not having a warmongering, facist regime next door that endangers our country with its foreign policy. I'll also exchange it for a cure for Parkinson's, Alzheimers, and other diseases, and for an attempt to tackle global warming.
The USA made a good choice for not only themselves, but for Canada and the entire world.
Posted by: Iggy for PM | 2006-11-08 11:22:41 AM
Frico, if you want to be the "greatest nation in the world", you don't go and destroy countries and then just leave.
Set You Free (as long as you're right-wing white trash): The "turnover date"?? The Americans cause a wasteland of shit in Iraq and they'll be allowed to have a turnover date?? To whom exactly, Mr International Affairs Expert?? The Shiites?? The Kurds?? The Sunnis?? Partition the country??
C'mon, Mr Know-It-All, instead of using simpleton neo-con "talking points" (turnover date? bwah-hah-hah!!), give some actual "thinking" (if you're capable). You wanted know a "fact" if it hit you sqaure in the nuts!!
Posted by: John Leningrad | 2006-11-08 11:27:08 AM
The comments of Iggy for PM are really quite hilarious. If I didn't know any better, I'd think Iggy for PM was really proof that John Lennon is still alive. Iggy for PM's (aka John Lennon)comments are really the lyrics of a new song he was going to put out to replace that left wing anthem "Imagine". It has been a long time since I have read such pap. Now excuse me while I go and rinse the bile taste out of my mouth.
Posted by: John Luft | 2006-11-08 11:30:52 AM
I hope, Iggy, that you understand American tariffs and duties are going to hurt Ontario and Quebec's manufacturing industry.
Alberta's energy resources will still be freely traded so that's OK. And NO America isn't going to buy into any Kyoto style agreement, it is against American law to ratify any agreements or accords that put America at an economic disadvantage.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-11-08 11:33:26 AM
Lol, thanks for the compliment John. I didn't realise I was so powerful with my message. Maybe I should take a Japanese wife.
Actually, your comment is ridiculous. Are you saying that you want a fence along our border, one that is considered the longest, undefended border in the world? Or maybe you think we'll anger god if we continue with stem cell research? My comments aren't John Lennonist, they are the thoughts of a normal human being, one not corrupted by ultra right-wing ideals and Fox News. You are what the American people voted against yesterday.
Posted by: Iggy for PM | 2006-11-08 11:38:01 AM
Speller, are you saying there will be new tariffs and duties because the Democrats have more power now?
Posted by: Iggy for PM | 2006-11-08 11:45:34 AM
Posted by: Speller | 2006-11-08 11:48:10 AM
yeh, that's it Iggy, you've got the American's nailed: no fence, no boats, no passports, no facism, no warming, no diseases, yeah, that's exactly what they voted for, brilliant analysis...
Posted by: Ziggy | 2006-11-08 11:50:23 AM
Well, don't forget, it was the Republicans who screwed us on softwood lumber, and its the Republicans who upheld and increased those ridiculous farm subsidies. The US claims to be the biggest doner of aid to Africa, but meanwhile, their subsidies on things like sugar, screw poor African countries out of way more money than they donate.
Posted by: Iggy for PM | 2006-11-08 11:51:59 AM
No, Iggy, it was the Liberals who screwed us on softwood lumber. The Americans just wanted a level playing field and saw our low stumpage fees on Crown Land as a subsidy.
When the Liberals took the disagreement to the WTO and GATT they ruled against Canada and agreed with the U.S.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-11-08 11:58:09 AM
I never said that the Ameicans voted on all those issues, Ziggy. They voted against a government that: wants to build a fence, put warships in the lakes, won't acknowledge global warming, won't allow stem cell research, and wants to make passports mandatory. Everyone knows the issue they actually voted on was Bush's botched illegal entry and occupation of Iraq (hence the facism part).
Posted by: Iggy for PM | 2006-11-08 11:58:16 AM
Didn't a certain Democratic Party President in the early 90s make it a legislative priority to pass NAFTA? Close to half of the votes of support in the U.S. House for NAFTA also came from Democrats.
Posted by: ALIO | 2006-11-08 11:59:30 AM
Correct Alio, and speaking of NAFTA, it was the NAFTA court that ruled in favour of Canada in the softwood lumber case, awarding us far more than we'll get from the US because Bush's poodle (aka Stephen Harper) accepted their lowball offer.
Posted by: Iggy for PM | 2006-11-08 12:02:11 PM
Iggy For PM, you are wasting your energy. If you took the time to read many of the posts here, you would understand that most posters here support the ultimate goal of having a world that strictly consists of the United States, Israel and Alberta (The Land of Promise, the Promised Land .... and Alberta). All other non-Christian, non neo-cons will be ethnically cleansed from the planet (especially those sissy Euros and all visible minorities).
Posted by: John Leningrad | 2006-11-08 12:03:38 PM
"won't allow stem cell research,"
Iggy, that's a lie and you know it.
Research can be done on stem cells, whether they are embryonic, umbilical or adult; the Bush administration said they will not provide federal funding for embryonic research.
Even you should be able to see the difference.
Posted by: Kathryn | 2006-11-08 12:08:13 PM
I'm well aware of what goes on here, John. I've been posting for some time now, previously as Lefty_99, and I know I'd be wasting my energy if I was trying to convert these people or if I actually thought they'd accept any of my ideas. However, there are a few clever people on here and I do enjoy a good debate. Unfortunately, many here are pigheaded and are short on facts, compassion, and logic.
Posted by: Iggy for PM | 2006-11-08 12:10:53 PM
JL- Forget US and Isreal! Alberta is god's country. Nothing to debate on that issue.
Posted by: ALIO | 2006-11-08 12:13:51 PM
And Kathryn, how much research do you think will happen without government funding?? Are they strictly to rely on private and/or corporate donations?? How many diseases might be cured that way?
It's not like they're ripping embryos out of women's uterus's while they walk down the street. These are embryos that are not being implanted for full gestation. Are all these religious wing-nuts against in-vitro fertilization as well? Because most in-vitro cases, like Celine Dion for instance, keep a few ferilized embryos in the freezer (most often never used, thawed ...... and die). I think they should be forcefully implanted into the lower abdomens of the neo-con ladyfolk here at the Western Standard.
Posted by: John Leningrad | 2006-11-08 12:17:13 PM
ALIO wrote: Time to bid farewell to Rumsfeld. Looks like he can't sidestep the fact that his failures have come home to roost in the form of a democrat congress.
He just announced his resignation. Former CIA chief Robert Gates has been nominated to replace him.
Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-11-08 12:20:17 PM
Refusing to fund/not allowing, just a different shade of yellow. I was not suggesting they banned its practices, but by not funding, they are being unapproving. They can't spend a few bucks on research to potentially save and/or improve millions of lives because its "unethical", but they can spend billions on the murder of 650,000 innocent Iraqi civilians.
Posted by: Iggy for PM | 2006-11-08 12:22:34 PM
For those who like David Warren's thoughts, his ideas on what will follow in Iraq may be found here:
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-11-08 12:23:50 PM
Iggy, I should have said your "well-intentioned" waste of energy.
Sometimes, when these guys agree with you, it's comedic. For example, Speller said he hoped that the Democrats do inherit the Iraq issue (as I said). Of course, I want them to inherit it because it's an American mess and I hope they're stuck with it forever (and because it will look good as part of the George W Bush legacy). Speller likely wanted the Democrats to inherit the "battle" because he wants to "win" against the "Islamofascists" and it ain't really a "win" if a few hundred thousand more Iraqis don't die. And a "win" will allow the Americans to move into Syria and Lebanon to partition those countries onto Israel. Now, that would be a "win"!!!
Posted by: John Leningrad | 2006-11-08 12:25:31 PM
Research in medicine is done in the U.S. by private companies whose stock is traded openly on the world market. When R&D yields a breakthrough the companies stock goes up and the stockholders get a dirty little thing, which Lefties can't comprehend, called PROFIT.
The majority of breakthroughs in stem cell research have come from adult stem cells.
People are free to buy stock in either case.
It is wrong to use public tax money from people who are morally against abortion to fund embryonic or fetal stem cell research.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-11-08 12:28:04 PM
Iggy, the fence along the border is a good idea for the USA to keep leftieslike you out!\
And re-leaving the mess in Iraq. maybe you haven't read up on history. It's always been that way in that part of the world. Nothing new about that so I suggest they take their candy bars & good will home with them ASAP. Tell them: " don't call us, We'll call you..yea right!!"
Posted by: Frico | 2006-11-08 12:30:25 PM
Muslims are dancing in the streets today an with a congress bleeding "San Fransico values" which are identical to "da Canadian values" we will all need to start shopping for prayer mats and turbans in the near future or lose about a foot of height.
Wait and see. And by the by ... the friends of Islam who have now taken control of Washington, are actually the most hated of all in the world of Islam since they are most perverted pack of sicko socialists in the world (next to Jack and company that is.)
They kill gays and lesbians on site, they don't have welfare and if you get sick you die. And did I mention women are one down from dogs?
in the first half of the 20th century our ancestors built a great Western Democracy with self-reliance and stoicism in the wonderful capitalist system.
Their children in the last half of the 20th century (you know the San Fran types) tore it down and became weak, stupid, far and dependent.
The children of the latter will be the ones who will have to live under dimmitude and they will all deserve it.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-11-08 12:30:51 PM
Oops, that should read "stupid,fat and dependent.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-11-08 12:32:38 PM
JL - a rant is a rant is a rant...
Posted by: ALIO | 2006-11-08 12:33:20 PM
I don't think the war was being won the way it was being fought, I don't think the Dems would fight it any harder, and my idea of a win wouldn't be giving land to anybody, winning would be the permanent removal of the threat, which I see as Islam itself.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-11-08 12:33:30 PM
Iggy, you are ignoring the "culture of life". "Life" includes hardly split blastocysts (you know, about five minutes after conception) and wasted semen after inconsequential sex. "Non-Life" includes women and children killed as part of the "War On Terror" or the those baby agents of Hezbollah killed in Lebanon.
In the crazy old US of A, you can bomb abortion clinics and kill these unwed mothers before they have a chance to abort their fetuses (we wouldn't want that - schrapnel and TNT are more effective).
Posted by: John Leningrad | 2006-11-08 12:34:04 PM
You are right Speller, and that's the problem with medical research. For example, what would happen if a government funded research lab suddenly found the cure for the common cold? Billions of dollars in sales and stocks would evaporate over night because we wouldn't need Halls, Vicks, Tylenol Cold&Flu, Cold FX, Kleenex, etc etc... Same goes with AIDS, Acne, and many more ailments. We on the left understand "profits", but we don't think like you. You put life ahead of profit, we don't.
Posted by: Iggy for PM | 2006-11-08 12:35:34 PM
'The cold', Iggy, as you put it is not something that can be cured because it is a group of symptoms caused by a myriad of different unrelated viruses. There never would be a cure but I'm sure some Lefty government would love to fund research into it just to make people like you feel good about the idea of it.
Acne is similarly caused by many different sources so don't get your hopes up, Iggy.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-11-08 12:41:58 PM
Speller, how is it that you intend to "remove Islam". Next to Christianity, it has the second largest number of adherents in the world. Once you remove it from Iraq, I suppose you will move onto countries that have the largest number of Muslims (and very pious ones too) - Indonesia and Pakistan. Of course, when you're done there, you'll move onto Nigeria. Somalia. All of North Africa. Back to the Middle East - Saudia Arabia, the Emirates.
Basically, blaming a religion is like asying we should end Christianity because of the Americans' beligerant ways or that we should convert all the Jews in New York because Israel likes to confiscate the land of others.
I'm glad you've thought this plan through ....
Posted by: John Leningrad | 2006-11-08 12:42:03 PM
Good post John. Oh, and you mentioned me wasting my energy? I don't ever waste my energy responding to whatever Duke has to say. He's the biggest piece of shit on this blog. I'm convinced he's like that church leader who got nailed this week for being gay and buying speed. I reckon Duke is the biggest closet homosexual on here, who sits on his couch in his trailer watching gay porn whilst resting his remote control on his beer belly. I've never seen one intelligent word written by him, and I said I come here for clever debate, not to respond to ignorant assholes.
Posted by: Iggy for PM | 2006-11-08 12:42:51 PM
Duke - I think one of those "San Francisco types" slipped you some bad acid. Didn't you hear the warning over the PA system?
Posted by: ALIO | 2006-11-08 12:43:26 PM
Wow Speller, a doctor and a bigot. Good for you mate.
Posted by: Iggy for PM | 2006-11-08 12:45:08 PM
Unlike Christianity or Hinduism or Judasim, Islam could be removed simply making one of the Six Pillars of Islam impossible to fulfill.
The Hajj, which is the Fifth Pillar of Islam, is dependent on the physical existence of Mecca.
No Mecca=No Hajj= No Islam
Posted by: Speller | 2006-11-08 12:49:26 PM
JL and Iggy,
I look forward to the day when "progressives" such as yourselves learn to actually Google and/or read. A little historical perspective on your hysterical Embryonic Stem cell rants:
Bill that made it illegal to use US Federal money for Embryonic Stem Cell research was signed in.....
1995 by Bill Clinton.
Bill that was signed to provide $100 million US Federal funding to certain defined Embryonic Stem Cell lines in...
2001 by George Bush
The most recent item is that Bush did veto a bill that would allow Federal money to be used for research where stem cells are derived from the destruction of an embryo.
And there is nothing precluding a private company from preforming research on stem cells that are not on the approved list of 2001 as long as they do not use Federal funds for that.
Which means that all of the major pharmaceuticals are doing just that....
Posted by: Another Sean | 2006-11-08 12:55:20 PM
So, Speller, if you bomb Mecca into rubble, you believe one billion Muslims will simply turn to Gideon's Bible and start praising the name of Jesus?? Or will they more likely resort to some sort of ..... I dunno ..... Jihad??
Actually, using your logic, how would one remove Christianity, as that is likely the biggest threat to world peace these days??
I must admit your quick and dirty solution ,though simplistic, is quite clever!! Simpletons like Stockwell Day and Peter McKay will be lining up for your advice!!
Posted by: John Leningrad | 2006-11-08 12:55:54 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.