Friday, October 27, 2006

I've used some nasty language in the past (I, hard to believe!) to describe political pontificator Stuart Rothenberg, because he came out with the hacky "purge" language because Democrats chose to challenge the finger-in-the-wind politics of Joe Lieberman (more on that this weekend, when I have a piece coming out that discusses this).

In any case, I still hope he is right in his most recent prediction: 45-60 seats, and he says it could be on the higher end! Yes, you're not reading that wrong. Yowsers...I hope he knows what he's talking about this time.

One bone of contention (because I can't ever completely compliment Stu), as a historian-kinda-guy, I have to argue with his comparison of this election to 1974 and not 1966. I see the 1974 comparison, war and scandal, and agree with it.

But what of 1966 then? A midterm in which Democrats lost 47 House seats, because a depressed base who viewed its own party as corrupt and its own president, a bombastic Texan, as a miscreant. An unpopular war that party was credited with starting and escalating.

Sounds familiar enough to me.


At 12:58 PM, Blogger Fernando said...

Sounds familiar to me too Cliff.

FINALLY somebody said it.

Johnson poisoned the well for all liberals/progressives. It seemed like he worked FOR the democrats that were about to jump ship.

His "Great Society" seemed meant to kill us by forcing ridiculous expectations. All of this was done so suspiciously after a true progressive (Kennedy) was assassinated.

Your post Cliff, in the context of history makes perfect sense.

1) the discovered pictures of Hunt in Dealey Plaza with Nixon who was caught stealing them at the Watergate even thou all poles showed him winning the election.
2) 2) Nixon’s sponsors (Prescott Bush), Prescotts far right wing fascist support with UBC scandal.
3) The current administration tactics of divide and conquer to grow the military, profit from it, and create corporate elitists.

Yes here we are again. The people are fed up. Will we somehow elect a leader that is helped by the CIA and FBI for peace? I don’t think so.

Kennedy authority was openly challenged by the CIA’s war on cuba.

Jimmy Carter got no assistance from either service or we would have succeeded in bringing home hostages. That is until Regan/Bush took the office.

Clinton got no help identifying the Cole perpetrators until after a Bush was put in office.

Coincidence? I’m worried we are going to be set up again.

At 1:14 PM, Blogger Fernando said...

Will Michael Steele be the first to bolt from the Repuglycan party to poision us again?


Post a Comment

<< Home