May 20, 2006

Big Wheels Keep On Spinning

Hatched by Dafydd

The New York Times has, yet again, published an article saying that the Democrats are poised to seize the House and make deep inroads in the Senate. And yet again, if you actually look a little deeper at their Times' sources, you have to scratch your head and wonder why the Times is always so eager to crawl so far out on a limb that could break off in November -- just as it did last time.

In House Races, More G.O.P. Seats Look Vulnerable
by Adam Nagourney
May 21, 2006

WASHINGTON, May 19 — For months, even in the face of an avalanche of bad news for Republicans, Democratic ambitions for capturing Congress have collided with an electoral map created to protect Republicans from ouster. Despite polls showing rising support for Democrats and scorn for Republicans, analysts have said Democratic hopes for big gains remain remote, because so few seats are in contention.

That appears to be changing.

Over the past week, a handful of once-safe Republican Congressional seats have come into play, and other Republican incumbents are facing increasingly stiff re-election battles, according to analysts, pollsters and officials in both parties. The change amounts to a slight but significant shift in the playing field, and a potentially pivotal change in the dynamics of this midterm election.

I'm not sure what a change has to do around here to get promoted to "slight but significant." But the Pew Research Center is confident of sweeping Democratic gains:

Andrew Kohut, a pollster who is the director of the Pew Research Center, said the public was as unhappy with Congress as at any time in the history of the Pew Poll, and that a third of those polled in his most recent survey said they would use their Congressional vote as an opportunity to vote against Mr. Bush, which is precisely the way Democrats have been trying to frame this election.

"Everything is pointing to a pretty big Democratic victory if attitudes toward Congress remain as negative as they are and attitudes toward President Bush remain as negative as they are," Mr. Kohut said. "It's hard to imagine any way that wouldn't happen."

Hm; perhaps my imagination is just better than Mr. Kohut's. I can imagine a number of scenarios where "attitudes toward Congress... [and] President Bush" get better:

  • The war in Iraq continues to go better and better, as it has been doing the last few months, until it becomes impossible for the antique media to continue the coverup of our victory;
  • Musab Zarqawi is captured or killed;
  • Moqtada Sadr is killed in fighting;
  • There is a huge terrorist attack somewhere in the world, reminding voters of the stakes in the GWOT;
  • Congress passes a good compromise immigration bill, which the president signs;
  • Congress actually does something about earmarks and other spending nonsense, especially if it's as a result of President Bush taking a poke at them;
  • Bush nominates more conservative judges and the Senate -- perhaps after a showdown over filibusters -- confirms them;
  • People's opinions about how well others are doing financially catches up with their understanding of how well they, themselves are doing;
  • Bush, his cabinet, and his new spokesman Tony Snow actually begin talking to the people and explaining all the great things they've done the past couple of years;
  • The Democrats continue being Democrats, and more and more we hear open talk of two years of investigations and impeachment proceedings against Bush.

None of these possibilities except the last is in the hands of Democrats; and they are no more capable of controlling themselves than is the scorpion capable of not stinging the frog. All the other events are either controlled by Bush and the Republicans; or else they're controlled externally, by the terrorists or by our own military. And every single one of these events would improve Republicans' chances for 2006.

Back to the Times article. Here is the independent, non-partisan, unbiased Stuart Rothenberg of the Rothenberg Report; he too is very upbeat about the Democrats' chances this November:

Stuart Rothenberg, an independent analyst who tracks Congressional races, said his latest forecast, to be distributed next week, predicted that Democrats could make gains of 8 to 12 seats. That is an increase from a prediction last month that Democrats would gain 7 to 10 seats.

"When we say Democrats are positioned to gain 8 to 12 seats, that certainly means the House is in play," Mr. Rothenberg said. "And those numbers are likely to go up. They are more likely to go up than they are to go down, that's for sure."

Whew! Time to break out those Republican crying towels, right? Wait, not so fast, please. Let's take a trip to just a couple of years ago using our electronic Way-Back Machine -- a.k.a. the internet. Here is a blast from the past, the New York Times on May 28th, 2004:

Washington Talk; For House Democrats, a Whiff of Victory
by Carl Hulse (NYT)
May 28, 2004

WASHINGTON, May 27 - House Democrats do not usually like to talk about 1994, the year of their exile into the minority. It has been a bad memory, best left undisturbed.

But in a changing political climate, some Democrats are now taking a new look at their least favorite year and finding some heartening parallels with the current one. Democratic leaders say they believe they are poised to reverse the surprise Republican takeover of 1994, particularly if a continuing slip in public support for President Bush puts a breeze at their back.

(Note that you have to purchase this archived article for $3.95 if you want to read the whole thing.)

In particular, take a look at what Mr. Rothenberg himself was saying in May, 2004:

Stuart Rothenberg, a nonpartisan analyst of Congressional races, acknowledges that the picture has brightened for Democrats. But he says he still believes they are not quite within reach of House control, mainly because of their need to oust Republican incumbents.

''In getting up to 218,'' Mr. Rothenberg said of the number required for a majority in the 435-member House, ''you don't just need a wave, you need a tsunami.''

Still, he recalls that at this stage in 1994, no one thought the Republican wave would wash aside the Democrats.

He wasn't alone. The independent, non-partisan, unbiased Kevin Drum wondered in his June 11th Washington Monthly column (free) why no one was screaming to the skies what seemed perfectly obvious to him, that the sky was falling on Republicans, and Democrats were poised for huge gains:

So here's what we've got. The May polls show a Democratic lead of 7 points. Dowd, who is certainly trying to spin things as pro-Republican as he can, thinks the Dems have a 7-9 point lead. And the June LAT poll shows a 19 point Dem lead.

Bottom line: my guess is that the LAT poll is an outlier for some reason, but at the same time things really have turned against the Republicans in the past few weeks. Democrats aren't ahead by 19 points, but I wouldn't be surprised if the reality is that they're now 11-12 points ahead.

But here's one more oddity. A genuine Democratic lead of at least 10 points seems pretty likely based on the results of multiple polls, and yet I've heard nothing — nothing — suggesting that Democrats are likely to pick up even a dozen House seats this year, let alone the large number that a 10-point lead implies even when you take gerrymandered House districts into account. What's going on? Why isn't anyone even talking about this?

By September, 2004, Rothenberg was saying the Democratic prospects for huge gains were dimming; but he was still wondering how many seats they would nab in the elections less than two months in the future (the link is to Free Republic because the Rothenberg Report archives, while free, don't have a link to this column):

To have any chance of retaking the House, Democrats still need a wave to develop, and in this regard they remain better positioned than the Republicans to net seats in November. But a wave seems less likely today than it did four weeks ago, and honest Democrats are no longer able to talk seriously about 218 seats.

For the Democrats to have reached 218 seats in 2004 would have required a net gain of 14 seats; so as late as September, 2004, Stuart Rothenberg was skeptical about the Democrats gaining 14 net, believing they would gain somewhat less than that.

So what happened two months later in the actual election? The Republicans -- not the Democrats -- gained a net 3 seats in the House and 4 seats in the Senate. All of the analysts were wrong, and it turns out that no one could predict in May (or June, or even September) 2004 what was actually to happen in November that year.

So before we all fly off the handle, just remember:

Tra la! It's May!
The lusty month of May!
That lovely month when ev'ryone goes
Blissfully astray....
Those dreary vows that ev'ryone takes,
Ev'ryone breaks.
Ev'ryone makes divine mistakes
The lusty month of May!

And don't fret. The absolute best way to advance the conservative agenda is not to sit out the election, not to vote for some goofy third-party candidate, and certainly not to vote for the Democrats... but to commit right here and now to turn out in November and vote for the Republican, even if you have to hold your nose as you do it.

The lone exception would be some Republican who is so outlandishly dangerous to the party that you really would, honest to goodness, prefer to have a Democrat in that seat. The only person in that category right now is Sen. Lincoln Chafee, RINO from Rhode Island. Not everybody else "deserves" your vote (in some cosmic sense); but we as a nation deserve GOP dolts instead of their far worse doltish Democratic challengers. It's better to accept a thoughtless Christmas gift than to get a lump of lead in our stockings.

The MSM plans to try to depress the Republican vote by depressing the voters. Don't let them. Just expect a steady diet of worms between now and November and pay them no heed.

If things are still this bad in October... then it'll be time to whip out that crying towel!

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, May 20, 2006, at the time of 6:07 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing:


The following hissed in response by: monkyboy

I think this spin already hurting Republican and helping Democratic fundraising, though...

The above hissed in response by: monkyboy [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 20, 2006 6:27 PM

The following hissed in response by: vnjagvet

It is interesting how Nagorney's template seems to repeat itself every two years. I hope he is as good a prognosticator now as he was two years ago.

The above hissed in response by: vnjagvet [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 20, 2006 6:58 PM

The following hissed in response by: MTF

All of this is speculation of course (since nobody really tells the truth to polls anymore), and about future attitudes as they will be expressed in the voting booth, which makes the whole discussion even more suspect, but I don't think the NYT has much of an impact on national thinking or (most especially!) on Republican fundraising. Nor can I imagine a reality where Andrew Kohut (who isn't a "pollster" by the way, he's a former editorial writer for the LA TImes) has much of a clue.

The Times can't accept one really fundamental fact: the American electorate is essentially a centrist voting group, maybe even center-right group, and will never trust the Pelosi/Reid/AP/Reuters/NYT elitist view of the world.

The above hissed in response by: MTF [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 20, 2006 8:14 PM

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

'NY Times' Legend A.M. 'Abe' Rosenthal Dies at 84
May 11, 2006

NEW YORK -- A.M. Rosenthal, a demanding editor who lifted The New York Times from economic doldrums in the 1970s and molded it into a journalistic juggernaut known for distinguished reporting of national and world affairs, died Wednesday at age 84.

He died of complications from a stroke he suffered two weeks ago, the Times said.

Rosenthal, known as Abe, spent virtually all of his working life at the Times, beginning as a lowly campus stringer in 1943. He rose to police reporter, foreign correspondent, managing editor and finally to the exalted office of executive editor, a post he held for nine years beginning in 1977.


Rosenthal's famous newsroom maxim, "keep the story straight," was prompted in part by the conservative-minded editor's perception of a leftist tilt in the paper's coverage, but some Times colleagues thought he overcompensated by giving too little attention to such stories as strife-torn Central America and AIDS.

As editor, Rosenthal barred the use of "Ms." or the word "gay" in reference to homosexuals - a far cry from the Times' later emphasis on diversity. He also began the paper's practice, now imitated by many others, of running corrections as a prominent daily fixture.

The above hissed in response by: RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 20, 2006 9:37 PM

The following hissed in response by: The Yell

Luckily my Rep. incumbent, Ken Calvert isn't a dolt. But it would be a real shame if he got buried on committees behind real horses' asses who got seniority out of misplaced party loyalty.

The above hissed in response by: The Yell [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 21, 2006 12:34 AM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Dafydd, yet another most *EXCELLENT* Post!!!

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 21, 2006 5:59 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I just read David McCullough's book on Truman and in the book there is considerable discussion about the 1948 election. Every polster, all the papers, all the political writers were sure Truman was a goner. They were wrong because the people proved them wrong.

Now unless people do something stupid, like give into some manufactured mass hysteria about immigration [or some new crisis] then the Democrats won't win control of Congress.

Who is responsible for the hysteria? I think there are several culprits but I do know that not long ago people were having a cow about Supreme Court Justices and now it seems they could care less, and then there was the whole Dubai silliness that ended by damaging Bush and leaving the Saudis and Chinese operating ports while certain pundits moved onto greener immigration. Immigration is not only complicated it is a problem we have been grappling with for decades and now all of a sudden it is Bush's fault and the Congress has to magically remove 11 million people from the country right this minute, today, as we speak.... or we are all going to DIE!!!!! or something. War on Terror??? What War on Terror?

So yes, I think the Republicans can win, unless the hysterical conservatives, the conniving Democrats and their coherts in the press manage to steal or wreck the elections.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 21, 2006 7:21 AM

The following hissed in response by: Johnny Yuma

The Democrats will win big. There will be terror and confusion and catastrophe unlike anything the Nation has known, including the civil war. This isn't just political shenanigans, it's a world wide movement and I can name 10 major nations particularly interested in destroying GWB and his administration. This isn't an American election ... it is an election the rest of the world's criminal political cabals must win. The DNC is merely the visible tip of this criminal matrix.

Anything is allowable in a time of survival, and it is reasonable, level headed citizens who get the rest of us killed. The Left is fighting for survival. They will act unreasonably. Right thinking Americans should realize they too are fighting for survival, but they will continue to be reasonable. We are doomed because of it. The Left is neither reasonable nor level headed and it is their energy, their passion and their white hot hate that will drive them to undertake the most dangerous tactics to win back their power. Reasonable people will not. Reasonable = powerless. We are not in a time of sense and sensibility. We are not in a time of intellectual arguments. We are not in a time of steadying hands keep the boat from rocking. This is War, and it is war on all fronts. The unreasonable will win. Reasonable = dispassionate. Reasonable = without force. Reasonable = essentially, cowardice. Reasonable is another way of spelling defeat.

Our founding fathers were not reasonable. The reasonable amongst us at that time opted to go along to get along. The reasonable amongst us at that time opted to speak Revolution, but continue to trade with the Crown and pay the Crown's tribute. Reasonable men did not win us our freedom.

It is reasonable to presume that the Democrats are so crazy that they couldn't win votes from soccer moms in a free mini-van giveaway. But the Democrats are one finger, and what is aimed at us this time is many many fists. Some gloved, many not.

The Mother of God warned at Fatima that should we not recognize the times we are in, we would be overwhelmed by a diabolical disorientation. People who hold themselves out as Conservatives don't even understand the Constitution, nor seek to restore the Republic to its Constitution. Fake money, taxes on incomes, property taxes, illegality of free speech in our house of worship ... the list of Constituional slippage is so mind numbing Conservatives won't even discuss it.

Instead we fight the wrong war. I have zero problem with putting the whack on a genuinely dangerous psychotic like Saddam, but the real war is inside our own house. The real war is with the media, it is with Marxism rampant in our federal apparatus, Marxism rampant amongst the powerful and rich and our real fight is inside our system of education which is nothing like real eductaion and everything like propaganda and inculcation.

We do not vigorously defend the Constitution. We do not vigorously defend the Republic. We do not vigorously defend the culture of being American. We do not defend our common roots, heritage nor even our language.

It matters not one whit whether Republican or Democrat wins in November or 2008. Surely the past four years have proven to you once and for all that there is but One Party ... the party of power and they field two teams. These two teams wrestle like WWF for your distraction and amusement, while the real work of overturning the Republic into a mere democracy, balkanizing th nation and dividing us into two classes of Rulers and everyone else ... surely the past fours years should have convinced you that the words Repiblican Party are synonymous with as much madness and insanity as anything the Democrats have ever done, and the Denocrats are sincerely evil.

The real war is elsehwere.

And it will not be won by reasonable men.

The above hissed in response by: Johnny Yuma [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 21, 2006 9:48 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Colonel Kubiak:

Posting the same comment multiple times under a post constitutes comment spam. Also, posting a boilerplate comment to several different posts also constitutes comment spam.

You're welcomed (encouraged!) to post new, unique comments to posts; but please don't keep posting the letter you wrote to Bill O'Reilly... we've already read it.


The Mgt.

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 21, 2006 1:39 PM

The following hissed in response by: crosspatch

The pollsters were predicting Dem increases in congress and also showed Kerry leading Bush up until election day. So since when does anyone believe the public polls.

The above hissed in response by: crosspatch [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 21, 2006 6:53 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

What is sickening to "me" is the fact that all of these figures are based on a House of Representatives where the Congressional Apportionment is based on a Census that includes Non-Citizens in it's count.

That little detail gives the Democrats about a 24 Seat advantage,

Think what the balance of power in the House would look like if only Citizens were counted and those Seats then switched as a result to Red States?

Burns: Illegal immigrants shouldn't be counted in Census

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 21, 2006 7:04 PM

The following hissed in response by: bpilch

Still, the NYT referenced some specific congressional elections, but gave no examples (at least you didn't excerpt any). Everyone likes to refer to the generic congressional vote, when noone is voting for the generic candidate. When you go to individual races it is very difficult to show which enough races where the dems will win...

The above hissed in response by: bpilch [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 21, 2006 7:29 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dan Kauffman:

What is sickening to "me" is the fact that all of these figures are based on a House of Representatives where the Congressional Apportionment is based on a Census that includes Non-Citizens in it's count.

That little detail gives the Democrats about a 24 Seat advantage.

Well, "that little detail" is directly imposed by the Constitution of the United States. The original enumeration clause read thus:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, it changed the rules for apportionment as follows:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.

So if you want to change it to count only citizens, you need to enact a constitutional amendment. This means that you must get a minimum of 58 Democratic representatives and 12 Democratic senators (assuming each and every Republican goes along), plus at least eight blue states, all voting to diminish Democratic power to benefit Republicans.

That's quite a row you've bitten off there, Dan; it'll be a man's job to reel them in. But good luck to you!


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 21, 2006 7:42 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

Dafydd I know about the 14th Amendments use of the word "person"

Do you think that if the writers of that amendment had any idea the result would become the travesty is is today they would have written it that way?

I really would like to see an attempt at a Constitutional Amendment to alter that I WANT to see the Democratic Party justify their position, trying to block it. I would prefer the amendment go through, but if not then I would like to see the effect on their standing in National elections as a result of blocking it.

Now you can make fun of me, but do YOU think using Non-citizens to apportion Congressional Seats and Electoral Votes is something that SHOULD happen?

PS you left out a vote 0f 51% in 34 State Legislatures. and THEN a passage by 38 States.

PPS we HAVE passed Constitutional Amendments before. I wonder what the political repercussions for politicians defending Illegal Alien Seats in the House would be? If not for them than for their Party in National Elections?

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 21, 2006 9:41 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

I figure one citizen one vote is fair enough
I would also drop

"excluding Indians not taxed"

You can try to float an amendment allowing rich people to have extra seats if you wish.

Considering that the "residents of high income, high cost of living states" are Democratic Paty centers of power it might be interesting to see the outcome.

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 21, 2006 11:12 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dan Kauffman:

You may think I'm nuts (hey, get in line, pal!) but I think a very good case can actually be made for a "one dollar, one vote" policy: each person can cast as many votes as he likes... at a dollar apiece.

Bill Gates can cast a million votes; but only if he thinks his opinion in a particular electoral race is worth a million dollars. And if a million people plus one vote against him, he spent his million buckeroos for nothing!

In my case, Sachi and I would each vote, say, 100 votes for the Republican candidate in whatever race we considered the most important; then we'd vote maybe 50 votes for the next most important race, and perhaps 10 votes for the lower-tier races.

We would actually have to put our wallets where our mouths were: $200 for the two top votes, plus $100 for the two second-tier votes, and maybe $120 altogether for the downticket races.

But if we were really willing to donate $420 to promote our idea of the best candidates and best ballot propositions, that would probably be a lot more than the typical half-interested yahoo would spend for his own cockamamie opinion.

This system puts a premium on the committed (or maybe those who should be committed!) The money would first be used to pay for the election, then anything left over would go into the general fund.

I think David "Son o'Milton" Friedman came up with this idea about thirty-five years ago. Didn't he discuss it in the original 1973 edition of The Machinery of Freedom?

I had a long conversation with him about this idea, which captivated me, back in the 1970s in LASFS. He struck me as very intelligent but kind of geeky.


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 22, 2006 2:36 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

So your vote actually means less in states with high turnouts. Hardly fair...

What about states that have high populations of legal immigrants?

The above hissed in response by: monkyboy at May 22, 2006 01:20 AM

WAH WAH WAH whining because more people VOTE?

In State's with High Levels of Illegal Immigration a Party with unopposed dominant power does not NEED any extra votes it get Seats in the House Free. As a matter of fact it is in the Democratic Party's best interest that the Status Quo be unchanged.

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 22, 2006 3:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

The above hissed in response by: monkyboy at May 22, 2006 01:20 AM
Most of what you complain about are choices.
No one makes someone live in a high COLA State, they also DO seem to be Democratic strongholds with high taxation too, I wonder if that is connected.

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 22, 2006 3:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

You may think I'm nuts (hey, get in line, pal!) but I think a very good case can actually be made for a "one dollar, one vote" policy: each person can cast as many votes as he likes... at a dollar apiece
Actually I have thought about that myself, its a tempting thought put your money where your mouth/vote is, BUT it was a long hard struggle up (IMO) from the days when only Landed Gentry could vote to go back to something that resembles it so much,

That said I think the Campaign Reform Act is an Abomination and Uncontitutional (The Supreme Court feels differently, NOW)

In a time when burning the American Flag is protected expression under the 1st amendment, how can there be Laws prohibiting the most fundamental expression of Freedom of Speech? Supporting the political candidates of your choice, with whatever amount of your worldly goods you deem required?

The only Legal structure I would require is total transparency, you want to donate to a Party or a Candidate? There must be a record.

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 22, 2006 3:17 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

This system puts a premium on the committed (or maybe those who should be committed!) The money would first be used to pay for the election, then anything left over would go into the general fund
Does it occurr to you that the Democratic Party used to get 90% of campaign contributions in excess of One Million dollars?

I wonder if most conservative rich people may want to run their businesses and also support their philosophies, but progressive-liberal rich people might just want to run the world and the rest of us.

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 22, 2006 3:20 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

The MSM plans to try to depress the Republican vote by depressing the voters.

Local Talk Radio needs to catch up to the Internet, especially here in Hog Valley, Florida!!! OK...OK, since the radio signals actually come from Ocala, Gainesville, and/or Palatka, Florida, then they also need to catch up with the Internet.

Anyway, whilst poaching alligator on the Oklawaha River today, it was time for a break after diving for the last one that had sunk after humble me had shot it. Being a former felon, i am forced by Law to shoot them with an arrow shot from my bow, and i try to follow the Law. The Oklawaha River is the typical Florida dark water river, and i do like the rare rivers that flow North. Gators sink when they have been shot, and a poacher always hopes that the gator has sunk because it is dead...even a Rifle-Poacher. i usually try to get in close, since i use a bow (and a knife to finish them), and try to kill them on land whilst they are soaking in some sun; however, that last one was in the water (near the shore), and looked to be a 12-footer, so he would be worth diving for. The water is so dark, that a mask or goggles are useless, and one only needs a poke stick. Humble me has been poaching gators for about 20+ years now, and have never gotten use to finding that dead gator on the bottom with my poke stick (the mud is soft)...the "thump" is far too often followed by movement, from either a dead or live to speak of a needed break and some Talk Radio.

No links, and i just spent an hour or so checking The Sky 97.3 website. Why have a news website if you don't link to everything that you broadcast over your radio station?!? Oh well...and, perhaps Local Radio best start paying attention to what is and has been happening to MSM's TV, magazines, and newspapers, because Local Radio ain't going to get many more to speak.

Whilst on a break, humble Low and Ignorant Insane gator poaching me heard some dude (from some 'Group'?) saying that 2006 is "not a Presidential election year", but a "local election year". He made sense since he was probably correct, and i had recently read some of Dafydd's input on the subject, along with the input of Mrs. 'W'. He said something like this: "at least 95% of the incumbents will remain in office."

Yes, that last gator moved on the bottom of the Oklawaha River today, when i poked it, and i panicked. i probably looked like some missile being shot from a submarine, in fact, as i 'shot' out of the Oklawaha River, and basically landed on the shore. However, after taking a break, i went back into that now even *DARKER* Oklawaha River, and dragged out that dead gator's 10' 9" carcass. Hey, he wasn't a 12-footer, but he was plenty big enough!!!

This is still gator mating season, and the "local election year" is still some *SIX* months away, so who is actually panicking here...humble me, or the Democrat Party and *THEIR* MSM?!? Personally, their wiggling reminds gentle me of some prison punk's desperation as he chooses between being raped or being pimped out by gentle protecting me.

Forgive me for not having the link, but whilst i typed this, i also checked out lots of other blogs, and none had it either; however, it was clear enough for former non-political me, and should be clear enough for 'Da to speak of such 'Thangs.

This is a "local election year",


The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 22, 2006 5:14 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved