You gotta hand it to Ann Coulter (better hand it to her before she hands you yours --) she knows how to predict and to analyze with wit and wisdom while bring out the beast in her targets. 

[Bold is my emphasis; my comments are in blue.]

History was made this week! For the first time in four election cycles, Democrats are not attacking the Diebold Corp. the day after the election, accusing it of rigging its voting machines. I guess Diebold has finally been vindicated.

That's because Bush doesn't own stock in Dibold.

So the left won the House and also Nicaragua. They've had a good week. At least they don't have their finger on the atom bomb yet.

Let's wait to see if the libs siddle up to Chavez or one of those alphabet tyrants .... 

Democrats support surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and the impeachment of President Bush. They just won an election by pretending to be against all three.

I'll hold judgment for 100 days ....

Jon Tester, Bob Casey Jr., Heath Shuler, possibly Jim Webb -- I've never seen so much raw testosterone in my life. The smell of sweaty jockstraps from the "new Democrats" is overwhelming.

We may need a task force to watch for fanny-slaps and high-fives when these guys break huddle  ... errrr, caucus.

Having predicted this paltry Democrat win, my next prediction is how long it will take all these new "gun totin' Democrats" to be fitted for leotards.

Joe Namath made a second career wearing panty hose. If these folks are one-termers, more power to them.  But I digress.   So how long will it take for these "conservative-to-moderate" democrats to move to the left?

Now that they've won their elections and don't have to deal with the hicks anymore, Tester can cut lose the infernal buzz cut, Casey can start taking "Emily's List" money, and Webb can go back to writing more incestuously homoerotic fiction ... and just in time for Christmas!

If Allen calls for a re-count, Webb will have time to finish a final draft .... Forget that.  Allen may toss in the towel tonight.

But according to the media, this week's election results are a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war "Ned the Red" Lamont).

OKOKOK.  Let's more on to a few historical realities.

In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" -- especially in the sixth year.

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" -- as MSNBC calls it -- rather than the death throes of a dying party.

During eight years of Clinton -- the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! -- Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House -- only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.

Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate -- and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)

Yeah, but who's keep score?  Eh?

So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was.

Guess that puts a damper on the rumored House bill to proclaim November 8 "National Reclamation Day."

In a choice between Republicans' "Stay until we win" Iraq policy or the Democrats' "Stay, leave ... stay for a while then leave ... redeploy and then come back ... leave and stay ... cut and run ... win, lose or draw policy," I guess Americans prefer the Republican policy.

The Democrats say we need a "new direction" in Iraq. Yeah, it's called "reverse." Democrats keep talking about a new military strategy in Iraq. How exactly is cut-and-run a new strategy? The French have been doing it for years. The Democrats are calling their new plan for Iraq "Operation Somalia."

The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans  as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about -- and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs. 

Points well taken.  Hopefully Dims will accept the fact that GWB is the Commander-in-Chief and, as such, will make final decisions concerning a military presence in Iraq.  Best that they make their recommendations and move on to other issues for which they sense a mandate. 

And you can punch that into your Diebold, deary.

On a brighter note -- it appears that moderates (Dems and Repubs) were the true mid-term winners last night.  This could be a good omen .... the President should be able to make progress on several fronts.  Extremists (especially the far right -- with the exception of a few libs) are in the minority. 

Will moderates be strong enough to buck the extremists?  We'll watch closely.

I want to see how Pelosi performs in the next "100 Hours" (her reference, not mine) and see how she will drain the "GOP Swamp."  We'll know then (in a few hundred hours or so) if she and other extremists actually  "heard" the call for change.   For the record -- this independent doesn't think they did.

It ain't all about Bush, by the way .... Pelosi may also need to be reminded that voters expressed less "agreement" with politicians than they did with the President.  An even more watchful reality is that ACORN takes credit for registering several hundred thousand immigrant and homeless " special interest" voters for this mid-term election -- with an agenda of it's own.  Uh huh.  These include the voters without proper ID's, false addresses and who rise from the dead to vote.

I'm also keeping that list (posted in the previous post) handy .... Remember to remember

when your taxes go up,
when the economy flounders,
when gas prices skyrocket again,
when the job rate plummets,
as illegal immigrants continue to sap local resources,
as new "endowment" programs drain even more resources,
when Islamic extremists continue to threaten,
as nuclear proliferation comes closer to home,
as diplomacy meets reality,
when national security is compromised, 
as our troops continue to "do things" you've never heard about,
when the gun-control issue rears it's invasive head,
when free trade gets railroaded (again) by unions,
as mainstream media flows even more yellow,
as global posturing turns away from Israel,
as the "swing vote" comes from illegal immigrants and deceased registrants,
as partisan vendettas reach new heights and lows --

In case you didn't read this list (i.e., watermarks in the dimmie floodgate), of course. 
 

Gonna vote?  It's your choice. 

And, no -- you won't get a sudden "burst" of truth from the liberal media.  You never have.  The talking heads have been too busy telling you how bad things are.  They won't let up until 2008.  And if liberals win in 2008, expect it to continue.

And if you are still buying their crap --  stay home.  You deserve what you get. 

But if you DO stay home tomorrow and let critics continue to pour kool-aid on your cornflakes -- don't expect too many to listen for the next couple of years as you bitch and whine --

when your taxes go up,
when the economy flounders,
when gas prices skyrocket again,
when the job rate plummets,
as illegal immigrants continue to sap local resources,
as new "endowment" programs drain even more resources,
when Islamic extremists continue to threaten,
as nuclear proliferation comes closer to home,
as diplomacy meets reality,
when national security is compromised, 
as our troops continue to "do things" you've never heard about,
when the gun-control issue rears it's invasive head,
when free trade gets railroaded (again) by unions,
as mainstream media flows even more yellow,
as global posturing turns away from Israel,
as the "swing vote" comes from illegal immigrants and deceased registrants,
as partisan vendettas reach new heights and lows --

It's your choice.  Get off your whiny butts and vote.  Stand your ground --- rise above the hype and distractions or stay home and fume for the next two years -- and beyond.   

Me?  I  voted early. Here's one reason why.

So what's it gonna be?

From the gallows he pleads -- not for mercy, but .....

Saddam Hussein urged Iraqis on Sunday to reject the sectarian violence ripping his country apart and to "not take revenge" on US invaders, his chief lawyer said after the ousted leader was sentenced to death.

Awfully nice of him to think of his nation now. 

Hey -- if his plea will lessen the violence, keep the buzzard in a cage until the Iraqi government gets on its feet.

Then hang him.

source:  The JP.

We miss you, Roy.  And Gene.  And Tom.  And Tex.  And Buck.  And Wild Bill.  And Lash.  And Paladin.  And Matt.  And Rowdy.  And Audie.  And even Flash of sci-fi fame ... With Clark and his super-cronies .... .

And if you don't recognize those names, explaining wouldn't help you remember.

It's the birthday of the "King of the Cowboys," Roy Rogers, born Leonard Franklin Slye in Cincinnati, Ohio (1911). When he was 18 he moved with his mother and father to California, where he earned money by harvesting fruit and working as a cowhand. He started playing guitar and singing in small theaters and on the radio in the 1930s. He met Bob Nolan and Tim Spencer, and they started the Sons of the Pioneers. The band made appearances in several motion pictures.

Rogers's first screen name was "Dick Weston." He changed it to Roy Rogers just before he got his first big break, replacing Gene Autry in the movie Under Western Stars (1938). The movie was a hit, and it launched Rogers's steady film career as a singing cowboy.

So much for cowboys of the 20th century and before -- those heroes of yester-year. 

Did you know that Ross Perot is a member of the Cowboy Hall of Fame?  Yep.  He sure is.  That scrawny little guy with the irritating voice is right up there with Roy and Gene and Hoppy and Clayton and all the others. 

NOTE: I didn't vote for him in THAT election, either!

H. Ross Perot, founder of Electronic Data Processing, Presidential candidate, National Cowboy Hall of Fame Inductee, trained horses and did rope tricks as a teenager. When Iranians arrested some of his employees, Perot organized a rescue. He became a billionaire when he sold EDP to General Motors. He made another huge chunk of money when GM paid him to get off the Board of Directors and quit asking embarrassing questions. His independent Presidential campaign in 1992 created panic among Republicans, Democrats, and news media.

And now into the 21st century rides another breed of cowboy ..... Reagan, Luke (Skywalker),Tom Selleck, Rambo, Clint, General (stuck-on-stupid) Honore and of course, this guy ...

Mosey on up to the comment bar, buckaroos, and name your own favorite cowboy (or cowgirl) ....

Yeeeee hawwwww. 

 [Oooops.  Lost my composure there for a second.]

Flashback:  Several years ago, I volunteered to join a  "real" cattle herd in Wyoming.  I have photos somewhere.  Don't make me prove it. 

Been there -- done that, by golly.  Ain't doing it again, either.  The pain (in muscles I never knew I had) in my posterior and legs was so severe, I had to hole up in a desolate motel for two days before I could climb into the jeep and drive home.  

Every time I recall that venture, I limp (similar to Gabby Hayes -- sans the beard) until the memory fades ..... 

Favorite sign at the Army - Air Force football game.

The score?

Military 1 - Kerry 0

What a relief.  The line was short, but each of the 20 or so voting machines were occupied.  A majority of voters carried a GOP sample ballot -- a cheat-sheet listing commissioners and judges ineligible for the "straight" vote. 

First time I've done that.  Usually, I study the summary sheets a day or so before voting. 

Parking lot outside was full of folks distributing fliers.  Lots of anger and head-shaking.  Mostly directed at John Kerry.  He's the reason I voted yesterday. 

Enough is enough.  If the ballot box were a weapon, consider John Kerry's career dead and buried.  Not surprising -- the best his publicist could do was to get him another insult on the Imus "call in" show yesterday.

Even Dems <gasp> chastised their once-touted 2004 Presidential candidate.  Of course, Democrats -- the party of outrage and hype -- are well-known for eating their own (i.e., Lieberman).

And in case you haven't heard what Kerry said OR haven't seen the troops response, here it is:

John Kerry:  "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

I don't think Kerry will be visiting Iraq in the near future ...

Scare-tactics aside -- methinks John sKerry may have given the GOP an early Halloween treat and the Dems an eleventh-hour horror trick.

TRAPPED ONE.

*

*Will be released November 8.

I've been on Mitt Romney watch for several months.  A recent article confirms my speculation ....

After a few false starts, the latest favorite to champion .... [the special interest -- movement conservative] agenda is Mitt Romney, the governor of Massachusetts.

In part, that's because of the unacceptability of the two Republican candidates who are leading in the polls: Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor with a record of supporting gay rights, abortion rights and gun control, and Senator John McCain, who for various reasons, some irrational, is anathema to many social conservatives.

A year ago, there were two possibilities: the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, and Senator George Allen of Virginia. Both have since imploded politically.

Thus, the infatuation on the right with Romney is growing.

This is noteworthy on two grounds. One is religion. A devout Mormon, he comes from a conservative sect that some evangelicals, other Protestants and Catholics have viewed as a cult. The other is ideology. The charismatic 59-year-old Romney once appeared agnostic on abortion - it should be "safe and legal," he said - when he ran unsuccessfully for senator in 1994 and successfully for governor in 2002. He has also taken a much tougher line against gays,

especially on civil unions, in the past several years. Conservatives, looking for an alternative to McCain, seem willing to overlook these transgressions.

"Mitt Romney is a mainstream conservative," says Barbara Comstock, an activist on the Republican right who will work for his nomination. "He governed in a very liberal state with mainstream conservative principles."

The most notable achievement of that record is an initiative that requires all Massachusetts residents to obtain health insurance. That measure was criticized by the right and left, yet generally won plaudits for Romney.

Grover Norquist, an anti-tax crusader who spearheads Republican issue coalitions in Washington, saw "the party's base rallying around Romney" and dismissed any flip- flops as irrelevant. More important, Norquist said, was Romney's speech last month to 1,500 social conservatives at the Family Research Council: "Romney wowed them."

It will take more such performances to overcome the religious issue, which promises to surface for the first time in presidential politics since John F. Kennedy ran in 1960. A national survey by Bloomberg and The Los Angeles Times in July found that 37 percent of Americans said they would not vote for a Mormon for president, including one-third of Republicans and independents. That is more than two or three times the number of people who said they would not vote for a Catholic or Jew. "There still is a segment of evangelicals who, even if they agree with Romney on conservative social issues, have significant trouble with the theology his denomination represents," said Bill Leonard, dean of the Wake Forest University Divinity School in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. "They think Mormons have concocted a new revelation that is heretical Christianity at best."

Nevertheless, Leonard added, "Romney's candidacy is an illustration of how far Mormons have come; they now are essentially considered an American denomination by most people, which years ago they were not."

Romney, who's stepping down as governor, has been assiduously courting conservatives. In private meetings, he initiates discussions on how to deal with the religious issue. It may be that all he needs is the proper forum - for Kennedy it was a gathering of Protestant ministers in Houston - to allay concern.

In the Republican primaries, Romney has another weapon: McCain. The Arizona senator has done a good job of courting President George W. Bush and some of his supporters, and the two men came out of their 2000 presidential race with a minimal regard for one another. But much of the Republican right wing despises McCain, although he usually votes the social- conservative line. Privately, they say, he does not mean it.

Norquist, for example, dismissed complaints about Romney's past and even suggested that Giuliani might overcome his drawbacks simply by pledging to name conservatives like Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court. He hesitated, however, when asked about McCain and then said "perhaps if he takes the lead on pro-growth tax cuts," while making clear he does not think that will happen.

Thus, Romney's greatest asset with the activist right may be that he is the leading ABM - anybody but McCain - candidate. To be sure, McCain would be the most formidable American politician in the 2008 general election. When Democrats say Senator Hillary Clinton cannot win the presidency, they invariably mean in a matchup against the Arizona senator.

And the conventional wisdom is if Republicans take a drubbing on Nov. 7, which is a probability, they will have to swallow their reservations and accept McCain as the only candidate who can save the party from another debacle.

Maybe so. History, however, suggests it is unwise to bet against movement conservatives in the Republican Party.

While McCain has never been one of my favs, I'm not confident Giuliani can muster the base that Romney can .... I can, however, foresee McCain in the VP slot with Rudi in a prominent Cabinet position.

Romney has positive international exposure via the Olympics. Election to and being a productive governor in a state hostile to Republicans has to be a plus.

[Adult] stem cell research will be a relevant issue -- his quasi-activist wife has MS.

He's bright, articulate and photogenic. All pluses. By the time campaign season opens, he'll be surrounded by a team that will know how to "couch" negative vibes about his religion.

And, heck -- I have about as much right to express my druthers as anyone!!!