For a good time, stop by some of the winger sites this morning, the Town Hall and Freeper crowd, the spin is priceless. You'll find gems like this from the loathsome Michael Medved:
Exit polling showed 59% of voters expressing “disapproval” or the Iraq war, but many (if not most) of those voters dislike Bush’s policy because they feel it’s not aggressive enough. Tens of millions of Americans long to see a more intense, more focused approach to crushing the insurgency, even if it means more boots on the ground.Right. The voters rejected the Repubs convincingly because the GOP isn't war-y enough. No, Mike, we're not laughing with you, we are indeed laughing at you.
3 comments:
I am enjoying watching the GOP try to spin this in their direction. They got beaten like a Republican mistress, and there ain't a damned thing they can do about it. Bwahahahaha!
No one - not a single major credible candidate - ran a campaign using ESCALATION as a platform plank. Why? Because while I can see a line of reasoning that reaches a conclusion of the US needing LOTS and LOTS more boots on the ground in Iraq as a last ditch effort to crush the insurgency, we don't have anywhere near the troops necessary to do so, nor does anyone with brain cells to rub together believe that doing so NOW will do anything other than exacerbate the situation.
This is the kind of spin that makes thinking people laugh out loud.
So all these votes for Dems are because the public thinks they are more aggressive towards terrorist. That's ok with me!
I think what Medved's really saying is that the Repubes wasted billions of dollars and many lives doing NOTHING except protecting themselves and their corporate sponsors. The result is they created more terrorists. Medved and the public now realize that Dems will actually fight terrorists. Not with ill equipt and undermanned troops, but with intelligence, planning and world cooperation.
Yeah, I'm wrong, but this election feels soooo right!
Biggest disappointments? Cook County Illinois officials being unable to figure out how to use the new voting machines or perhaps Tammy Duckworth falling after Repubes ran sleazy campaign ads filled with lies about her position. Campaign law should require fact based advertising. If there isn't a fact to back it up there should be criminal charges filed. Saying "I'm Not Ned would stomp on baby ducks" will turn votes but should be criminally illegal. Since politicials have such a hard time following rules (i.e. don't diddle the pages) campaigns should be prevented from mentioning the opponent by name. Attack the party, attack the facts, don't stoop to slander.
Post a Comment