April 29, 2005


'Miracle' needed to win back Senate (Charles Hurt, 4/29/05, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid raised a few eyebrows yesterday on the Senate floor when he said it would take a "miracle" for Democrats to win enough races next year to take back the Senate.

"I would like to think a miracle would happen and we would pick up five seats this time," he said during a floor debate over the filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees. "I guess miracles never cease."

Republicans were delighted by what they called an "admission" from the highest-ranking elected Democrat in the country.

If only the country were a mess they'd have a shot.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 29, 2005 5:22 PM

Cue Al Michaels:

Do you believe in miracles?...NO!!!

Posted by: Matt Murphy at April 30, 2005 2:07 AM

With 'Republicans' like Chafee, Hagel, Domenici and Voinovich, does it really matter who wins? This is the New Jersification of America, where the parties stand for nothing and merely alternate with each other while insuring that the taxpayers continue to get sheared to the benefit of favored mobsters and other interests.

Posted by: bart at April 30, 2005 4:19 PM


That's inane. Those guys--other than Chafee--are consistently conservative and for all his barking Chafee votes to organize the GOP caucus. A Democratic replacement wouldn't

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2005 4:25 PM

Hagel is the Senate GOP's number one wuss, the biggest coward the party has seen since Mark Hatfield. Voinovich seemed OK until he started blathering about meeting Bolton across a kitchen table, but he's always been a tax and spend creep. Domenici is now the Senate's number one GOP K Street buttboy, since Bob Dull slitered off into retirement.

Conservative? My derriere!

Posted by: bart at April 30, 2005 4:59 PM

Bolton's a jerk--opposing him hardly makes Voinovich less conservative.

Pete Domenici has an over 70% lifetime conservative rating and has gotten more conservative with the GOP in power.

Hagel's over 80% last I saw.

just because they aren't knee-jerk doesn't make them not conservative.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2005 5:09 PM

Bolton is one of the best appointments to the role of UN Ambassador we could possibly have. He is the President's choice, and a Senator from the GOP better have a damn good reason to oppose a Presidential appointment. If being an arrogant obnoxious jerk were enough to get you disqualified from public service, who would be in the Senate, let alone the FBI or the IRS?

If we wanted to demonstrate its true irrelevance, we should appoint Alan Keyes to the post, but even he has enough self-awareness to recognize that putting him there would only serve to demonstrate how much of a waste of time the post is.

Of course, the best thing to do with the UN is bulldoze it, whether or not it's in session at the time, and use the land to put up a new facility for the Jets.

Domenici is every bit the pork barreller that Old Sheets was. I thought that when the GOP came into power they were supposed to reduce the size of government. Silly me.

When has Hagel not opposed the President at least partially on a single foreign policy issue? He is the go-to guy for the MSM whenever they need a GOP senator critical of Bush or the war or the neo-conservatives or whatever. He owes his wealth to Saudi subsidy of Vanguard Communications and pays them back at every opportunity. He's a bigger oil company stooge than Old Bush and I thought that wasn't in the universe of the possible.

Posted by: bart at April 30, 2005 5:30 PM

He's still a jerk. That's reason enough for someone to oppose him. Though I think it qualifies him.

Why would the GOP reduce a government it runs?

Hagel voted against the wars?

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2005 5:38 PM

Kerry voted for the war too, does that make him a Bush ally? You will agree that whenever the MSM needs a Republican Senator to criticize some aspect of the Bush Iraq policy on pseudo-realist grounds, they call on the dimwit from Nebraska.

The GOP was elected at least in some part on the theory that it would reduce the size of government. Hasn't 'get government off our backs' been a GOP mantra since the days of Bill Steiger's capital gains tax cut in the Carter Time of Troubles? Now, they are in a position to do so and they appear to be every bit as statist, as grasping, as self-dealing, as corrupt, as sleazy as the worst of the Democrats. There's hundreds of billions that could be cut and we could be eliminating the IRS. I don't see that happening with this crew.

Posted by: bart at April 30, 2005 6:15 PM

Kerry doesn't have an 85% conservative voting record. The post-war Iraq policy has been butchered and needs friendly criticism.

Getting government off our backs has nothing to do with shrinking it.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2005 6:54 PM

The point behind getting government off our backs was to reduce its size, its impact on our lives, its tax burden. All of that necessitated shrinking it. This Congress won't even eliminate utter wastes of time and money like the NEA, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Civil Rights Commission. For this I could elect President Boxer.

Hagel's criticism is not friendly, but is merely scripted by his Saudi paymasters.

Posted by: bart at April 30, 2005 7:22 PM

Hagel is someone who thinks that eating a Belgian waffle at an Omaha IHOP makes him a foreign policy expert.

Posted by: bart at April 30, 2005 7:23 PM

So you're someonme who thinks we should listen to trained foreign policy experts?

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2005 7:26 PM

Those agencies are doing excellent work. They didn't under Democrats.

Our interests are the same as the Sauds'.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2005 7:29 PM


The Saudis are encouraging terrorists to attack Americans in Iraq, that is hardly being on the same side no matter how you or the K Streeters or the Oil Lobby wish to portray it. The liberal use of anti-personnel weapons against Saudi Arabia, the execution of every member of the 'royal family' and an American military takeover of the oil fields would do a lot more to end terror in the world than chasing a thousand Saddams down the rat hole. Saudi Arabia is the great epicenter of terror, the schools it sponsors are where terrorists are indoctrinated from the Philipines to Fairfax County, Virginia.

I don't believe we should listen to foreign policy experts, merely that we should be able to refute them intelligently. The Hagels of the world are worse than foreign policy experts because it is obvious they know nothing other than what someone else (usually a foreign policy expert) tells them to parrot.

The whole idea of government sponsored art and literature goes against the grain of what it means to be 'conservative' in the American definition of the last century. Let the free market decide. A large enough market will have a place for Vermeer and Mapplethorpe, we don't need the government to sponsor either. Besides, I can go to Vegas on a three day toot and forget more about art and music than the government types dispensing project money will ever know, and I'm far from being the only taxpayer like that. We do not need a Civil Rights Commission for any reason whatsoever. At least that jumped-up janitor, Mary Frances Berry, is off of it.

Posted by: bart at April 30, 2005 8:17 PM

The Sa'uds want to sell oil. We want to buy it. It's in our mutual interest to Reform Islam and get on with business.

The government does an excellent job of sponsoring art when it sticks to putting classic art before the citizenry, which is what it does now under Republicans.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2005 8:32 PM

It is not the government's job to sponsor art any more than it is their job to give me a glass of warm milk at my bedstand at night before I go to sleep.

The Sauds use the money they make from the sale of oil to sponsor terror around the world, it is more than a simple business transaction.

Posted by: bart at April 30, 2005 8:47 PM

Sure it is. It improves our culture.

No, they don't.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2005 9:03 PM

Only the free market can improve the culture.

If you want to be blinkered about the Saudis that is your business, do not expect everyone else on the planet to share your obtuseness. If the Democrats are smart, they will tie Bush and the GOP together with the Saudis and merely broadcast what Saudi-controlled media, Saudi-sponsored madrassas and Saudi officials say for attribution pretty much every day. Juxtaposing those alongside statements from Bush and other Republicans praising those desert bandits will show the GOP to be idiots, panderers or both. Visit MEMRI and you'll get some idea.

Posted by: bart at April 30, 2005 9:58 PM

The market is a means, not an end.

Democrats just ran a campaign tying Bush o the Sa'uds. He won.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2005 10:02 PM


It was really muted, barely audible.

Posted by: bart at May 1, 2005 7:09 AM


By November, yes. But in August/September, Kerry was saying the word 'Saudi' in every other sentence. He tried, but there was just no traction on this point. And there probably never will be.

It really goes against the flavor of Foggy Bottom, which the Democrats just cannot attack as being too pro-Saudi (after all, they love a supine State Dept., eh?).

Posted by: jim hamlen at May 1, 2005 2:09 PM

The Saudis have been paying off Democrats too.

Posted by: bart at May 1, 2005 4:56 PM

They pay off all Americans, keeping our gas prices low.

Posted by: oj at May 1, 2005 4:58 PM

Charging the artificially high world price for oil is not doing us any favors.

We would be well within our rights to flatten their population centers and just take over the oil fields, expelling all surviving Muslims into the desert where if we are lucky they will starve or die of thirst.

Posted by: bart at May 1, 2005 6:33 PM


I keep forgetting, why should we do that Arabs but Germans were wrong to do it to Jews?

Posted by: oj at May 1, 2005 6:53 PM

Because Jews as a group were not engaged in terrorist activity against Germans as a group. Islam has been trying to destroy what it refers to as the Dar al-Harb for the better part of 1400 years. What was true in the day of Charles Martel is true today.

Please explain when organized groups of Jews flew planes into German office buildings killing thousands of innocents. I must have missed that day in history class. All across the Islamic World, 9/11 was celebrated including in the official newspapers of what you claim to be our ally, Saudi Arabia.

It is sad you are such a simpleton.

Posted by: bart at May 2, 2005 8:03 AM

Darwinists understood Jews to pose a far more dire threat to Germans than the Arabs dis to us.

Posted by: oj at May 2, 2005 8:26 AM


So the boastings and rantings of cowards/fools is worthy of our fear? Perhaps in your world.

And don't forget that the Germans accused the Jews of 'terrorism'. Who knows, they were closer to the situation than we are - maybe they were right.

And just where has Islam been ascendant (outside of Indonesia & the Philippines) for the last 500 years? Only in Europe and in Brooklyn. Any danger to you? Probably not.

Posted by: jim hamlen at May 2, 2005 9:25 AM