Post-Election Analysis

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by inked

Liberals’ inexplicable fixation with the militant homosexual cause (representative of less than 3% of the population) proved self-destructive. In the past month, that lobby has destabilised such widely disparate institutions as the Anglican Church, the European Commission and, now, the Democratic Party. With all 11 states where referenda were held on same-sex marriage rejecting the proposition by majorities that had to be weighed rather than counted, the constitutional amendment that will finally resolve this issue is in the bag.

The funny thing is - that democrats don't want to acknowledge - is that even in states that didn't vote for Bush - such as Oregon - the marriage referrendums lost.

Across the Union, this election was as historic as it was dramatic. George W Bush led by 3.5 million in the popular vote and won four million more votes than Ronald Reagan in his 1984 landslide. The turnout was the equivalent of 70% in a British election, with 120 million Americans casting their votes. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives are now in solid Republican control: that makes a conservative Supreme Court, with both power and a strong popular mandate to reverse Roe v Wade and other liberal obscenities, a shoo-in.

I disagree with this one - there are many moderate republicans which would not like to see a radical "right" supreme court justice. I think any supreme court justice should only enforce the consitution - not make laws. Now I do think that Roe vs Wade was actually the courts legislating. I have not seen anything in the Constitution which shows that it is a person's right to have an abortion. It's difficult situation and something that should have been determined in Congress - not in the Supreme Court.

Now he wants Hillary Clinton to challenge for the Democratic nomination in 2008. Great idea: an East Coast, liberal, feminist überbitch that might have been computer-realised by Karl Rove, to leave the Democrats with just California, Massachusetts and New Jersey. Bring her on!

Sadly she might win NJ - but NJ is a pretty divided state - whatever the democrats would like to think. There have been suggestions that maybe Condoleeza Rice would run in 2008 - which I would like to see happen. Even in 1999 - I had written to her telling her just that.

>I saw the speech you gave at the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles on
>C-Span. I just wanted to tell you that I thought it was excellent. I
>started watching it when it was already halfway through it - so I'm
>going to watch the beginning at 1:30. If you're ever in Indianapolis or
>Louisville giving a speech I would love to hear you speak in person.
>
>I read on the web that you were special assistant for national security
>affairs and senior director for Soviet affairs on the National Security
>Council under Bush. You have so many good ideas - I was wondering if
>you've ever thought about being more involved in politics. From the
>short amount I heard on C-Span, you're the type of person we need in the
>White House.
>
>I just wanted to say again - I thought it was excellent.

Her response....

Dear Mr. Rosetta,

Thank you for your nice note. I loved my service in Washington but I'm not
sure when and if I'll ever return. I am, nonetheless, very glad that you
enjoyed the talk. All the best.

Condi Rice

Hillary would be an appropriate sequel to Theresa Heinz Kerry, the worst First Lady that America never had. Yet the one memorable phrase of her non-campaign might have summed up the motivation of those millions of middle Americans queuing for seven hours outside polling stations: "Shove it!"

Hillary would mobilize the republicans to vote against her. That is why there are many democrats who would rather not see her run. They know how polerizing she is.

The whole vile, patronising agenda of the bespectacled drabby wimmin, the Florida conspiracy bores, the wine-bar Europhiles and the Hollywood freak show has been trashed.

I believe this is what caused a lot of the outpouring for Bush.