Promises

H/T Commenter simentt via e-mail who saw it at Karl Denninger's blog.

Karl Says:

My only comment: Youtube appears to have taken this down several times, but it keeps reappearing. I found several incantations along with people hosting the raw FLV file.

This appears to be created by some rather angry Democrats, and is one of the things I expected to start to see this year.

You better start listening to the people Washington. Youtube is today's version of handbills nailed to trees in the dark of night - in 1775. Ripping down the handbills does not make them go away when the people are pissed - it makes them multiply and the people begin to consider that the first box of freedom - speech - may no longer be effective.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

We Will Campaign Against You And Defeat You

You can watch more videos of the various town halls and protests at The Club For Growth. It is updated several times a day.

Republican Wins House Seat In Mississippi

Democrat Travis Childers has won a House seat in a Mississippi election. Yeah, but how does that fit with the title? Here is how.

...the Dems can win virtually anywhere if they nominate a candidate whose position on key issues is, or can be made to seem, close to that of the Republican.

The voters have not changed. It is the Republican Party that is out of sync.

And now you know why Pelosi and company can't get a bill for defeat in Iraq passed. Blue Dog Democrats.

What does this portend? The Democrat Wing of the Democrat Party is going to have a hard time governing. Just as they have had so far.

H/T Insty

Democrats Admit - Conservatives Won The Election

From Politico comes the admission that Democrats lost the last election.

The other lawmaker on the call, Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), defends Pelosi. “The speaker doesn’t have the votes,” he said. “If you see what has happened in the Democratic Caucus, I don’t think you’d be quite as critical of the speaker. She really is trying. … We cobbled together a majority by winning in a lot of seats that tend to be conservative: in the South, in the rural Midwest, and so on. These members are very much afraid that if they get too far out front, they’re going to lose their seat, and they’re being advised to not take risks so we can sustain this majority.”

So the Democrats are advising their party to not go all out anti-war because it is a losing strategy.

I seem to recall saying not too long after the election that the Conservatives had won. The 2006 elections changed the Party in Control. It didn't change the governing philosophy at all.

H/T Instapundit

An Interesting Question

Commenter Cormac-ballz asks:

What I don't get is: Congress is less popular than Bush because they didn't stop the war/stand up to Bush etc.

But Bush should be less popular because he's the one persecuting the war in first place!

Is there something about U.S. citizens that I fail to grasp? Is it because they don't sympathise with people they view as wimpy (e.g., Congress).

The Democrats won Congress by replacing the Republicans in the South with Blue Dog Democrats.

Those Democrats who won in the South promised not to damage the war effort. This has disgusted 1/2 the Democrats. The Republicans are disgusted to begin with. The other 1/2 of the Democrats are disgusted with the disgusted Democrats and no one is interested in solving the overspending problem.

So you have the Republicans who still support Bush - 24% and no one who supports Congress.

There is also the wimp factor which underlies the attitude of the Southern Democrats. They come from a martial culture. It transcends Republican/Democrat.

In many ways the Republicans won the last election. Southern Democrats are closer to the Republicans than they are to San Francisco liberal Democrats.

Cross Posted at Classical Values and at The Astute Bloggers

Blue Dogs Bark

The Blue Dog Democrats in the House are finding their voice.

...another sizable group of House Democrats is set to propose a different course today. The Democrats' Blue Dog Coalition -- comprised of more conservative Democrats -- will hold a press conference on the war at 11:30 am. Their proposal appears likely to include important differences from Murtha's legislation.

Currently including 44 members, the group describes itself as primarily "dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States."

Some Blue Dog leaders have criticized President George W. Bush's escalation plans for Iraq. Arkansas' Mike Ross, the Blue Dogs' Communications Co-Chair, has said that "sending 21,000 new troops is not a new direction, it’s simply more of the same." Kansas's Dennis Moore, the Caucus's Co-Chair for Policy, added earlier this month that "instead of the same open-ended strategy to stay in Iraq, we need to consider options put forth by the Iraq Study Group."

RAW STORY spoke to a variety of Blue Dog Democratic staff on Thursday about their pending proposal on the Iraq war. More than one noted that deliberations on the final bill would not be concluded until late in the evening.

But one aide was able to say that "the Blue Dogs are not calling for troop withdrawal tomorrow, and they're not cutting off funding, but they do want accountability and responsibility."

Blug Dog California member Joe Baca, however, told RAW STORY he supported Murtha's bill.

"I voted against the war in Iraq and have consistently opposed it and spoken out against it." Baca said. "I support Rep. Murtha’s proposal to redeploy American troops and start to bring them out of harm’s way while turning responsibility for Iraq over to the Iraqis themselves." He also added "As a Blue Dog committed to fiscal responsibility, I am in favor of holding the Administration accountable for the massive amounts of American taxpayer dollars being spent in Iraq, particularly with reports of fraud and profiteering by contractors."

A Democratic Leadership aide told RAW STORY that Speaker Pelosi was supportive of the bipartisan resolution on Iraq put forward Wednesday in the Senate. But, the aide added that "Democrats are exploring multiple options."

The Republican Party appeared ready to capitalize on the possible divisions that the Iraq war could create for Democrats in the House.

No surprise there. I have been telling my D friends since the election that Conservatives won.

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Consider Yourselves Rebuked

Over at the HuffPo Lawrence O'Donnell is making with post election pontifications from the Democrat side of the aisle. He doesn't like Pelosi's backing of Murtha and Alcee Hastings who both are tainted by corruption. HuffPo commenter CanadianJack says:

Pelosi's choice for majority leader is a no brainer. Murtha is well known and widely regarded as a hero by rank and file Democrats for his opposition to the war in Iraq, while his opponent, Steney H.Hoyer, is an unknown, except within the limited world of the higher eschelons of the Democratic Party. Mr. Hoyer, whatever his qualities, is seen essentially as a well connected party apparatchik, while Murtha is the man who had the guts to take a stand against the war in Iraq.

As I write this missive, Democratic congressmen are being inundated with emails from constituents in support of John Murtha. The election of Hoyer to the position of majority leader by the newly elected Democratic Congressmen would effectively be a rebuke Nancy Pelosi and to the grass roots party activists who did the work to get them elected.

I guess the party activists got rebuked.

I wonder if they are aware of the Lieberman debacle in CT ? In a liberal state the electorate went for the pro-winning Iraq candidate over the loser. People notice these things. Even some Democrats.

It looks like winning the election is cracking the Dems. Even before they get in office.

We know in engineering that when a brittle material cracks the crack propagates very rapidly. The Democrats are brittle indeed.

I look for an interesting two years where the Republicans mostly rule despite having lost the election. No wonder Pelosi has to get it all done in 100 hours. By the end of that time party unity will be utterly destroyed. In fact given her performance so far she may not even get 1 hour.

H/T Instapundit