Posts Tagged ‘history’

Because if you had you might not be saying things like this:

That’s most of the plan. The rest of the plan, as Israel explains, is making life difficult for some of the pro-life Republicans who were swept into Congress last year. The theory is that voters sort of elected them by accident. And they are numerous. At this year’s March for Life, an annual rally against legal abortion, 17 newly elected members of Congress spoke, stretching the speechifying part of the event about an hour longer than scheduled.

The new members include lots of people who took over suburban districts that had been trending more liberal. The Republicans who won, in most cases, didn’t run on abortion. They got pro-life support—the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List endorsed 14 Republican congressional candidates who took over Democratic seats. But Democrats remain convinced that the new class was never smoked out.

Take Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, R-N.Y., one of the Democrats’ favorite examples. She started in politics as a spokeswoman for Operation Rescue in the 1980s. She didn’t hide this fact, but when she began running, she said she’d “be really careful not to make this a referendum on abortion.” Her opponent, incumbent Rep. Dan Maffei, tried to make abortion an issue. He lost. And when Buerkle got to Congress she immediately became a prominent pro-life advocate. Pro-choice activists can explain all of this, or try to.

Dave Dave Dave, if you read me and the lonely conservative you would know that it was likely the linkage of Buerkle to the pro-life movement that made the difference for her.

But a large portion of NY25′s voters are in Onondaga County. I did some digging and found out that there were 147,332 Catholics in Onondaga County alone in 2000 (Sorry, I searched for hours and couldn’t find any more recent data, or a breakdown of religious affiliation of registered voters.) I’m sure enough of those Catholics are registered voters who could swing the election in Buerkle’s favor. This race hasn’t been about social issues. It’s been about the economy, the direction of our country, and the failed policies of the current administration and Congress. By running this ad Dan Maffei just gave undecided pro-life voters a reason to vote for Ann Marie Buerkle.

And as Stacy pointed out:

See? Buerkle needed a miracle to win and, by highlighting her pro-life record in the final days of the campaign, her opponent gave her that miracle. Out of more than 200,000 votes cast in NY-25, Buerkle won by 657 votes, and how many of those votes were decided on the pro-life issue?

Additionally you might notice that the polls have steadily been trending toward life for years, advances in science and medicine has changed the viability equations additionally democrats haven’t grasped the idea that killing off your own voters for two generations tends to shrink your potential voting base. Additionally the growing Latin population is heavily Catholic and not the Nancy Pelosi flavor of Catholic either.

Like all great Evils abortion will eventually fall, in the end Americans are basically decent people. Dave is betting on the wrong horse.

Update: Stacy Points out that Buerkle is going to need your financial help in the short term.

Instapundit, Stacy and Legal Insurrection and hotair headlines have all commented on this story concerning social scientists and the left:

If you want to really understand why I believe that the same elitist attitudes that caused democrats to support Slavery, Jim Crow and abortion (all three are about one group of people being better or more worthy than others) still run strong check out the comments section of the story itself:

Stuff like this:

Interesting article, but not proof of bias. There may be a selectivity effect that explains the dominance of liberals in the social sciences.

Or this:

The same “bias” would show up among physicists and other “hard” science people. Conclusions? Draw your own. Mine? Most thinking people are not very likely to be what you call “conservative”.

Or this:

there’s a bias against non-thinking people in a lot of fields.. that would mean non -liberal.

Or this:

Alternative hypothesis: closed-minded conservatives don’t make very good scientists.

All these comments were highly recommended by times readers, now lets play a game and re-write all of these comments with the words “liberal” and “conservative” replaced by “whites” and “blacks”:

Interesting article, but not proof of bias. There may be a selectivity effect that explains the dominance of “whites” in the social sciences.

The same “bias” would show up among physicists and other “hard” science people. Conclusions? Draw your own. Mine? Most thinking people are not very likely to be what you call “black“.

there’s a bias against non-thinking people in a lot of fields.. that would mean non –“whites”.

Alternative hypothesis: closed-minded “blacks” don’t make very good scientists.

Ladies and gentlemen I give you the children of Alexander Stephens and Cotton Ed Smith, the modern democratic party, same arrogance, same bigotry, different targets.

Up very early today and was doing paperwork and I noticed Willie Geist playing a clip from Donald Rumsfeld’s interview on ABC about the lack of WMD in Iraq.

This confuses me. Back in Oct and Dec. we posted on the Wikileaks memos (you remember the wikileaks memos? You know the leaks that the left is so supportive of. The leaks that got Mr. Assange a nomination for a Nobel peace prize?) the left was all over the leaks and have even defended the leaker from the military.

Strangely enough that same media and left decided that some of those leaks are more worthy of notice than others. And one of the most unworthy leaks for the MSM are the leaks concerning WMD.

At the time of my first post I quoted Rick Moran from the American Thinker:

Don’t expect any apologies from the rest of the world or even any acknowledgment that they were wrong. The narrative is set and nothing will change it.

ABC’s Diane Sawyer’s interview proves Rick right. Willie Geist’s lead in confirms it, Morning Joe is on Egypt right now but as there is a 2 hour delay today for my kid’s school and I’ll be getting ready for my flight to CPAC tomorrow I’ll be available to watch the rest of the show to see if they touch it too.

It’s one thing to not know ancient history or even history of the centuries ago. But it is another to not remember the history of just a few decades ago:

There is much debate over President Reagan because we all think of him differently. And over time, history sweetens our memories. But no matter what policy disagreements you may have had with him, you have to admire his style of politics. He embodied a spirit of bipartisanship.

He was a conservative Republican, but he understood that in order to get anything done he had to work across the aisle, which he did very effectively.

Ah yes those halcyon days of yesteryear. Before we get all teary eyed over those days of love and peace let me bring you some numbers:

97th congress:                98th Congress               99th Congress               100th Congress

House 244-191 (D)        House 272-163 (D)    House 253-182 (D)        House 258-177 (D)
Senate 53-47    (R)        Senate 55-45     (R)    Senate 53-47     (R)        Senate 55-45 (D)

 

You might recall in the lame duck session with a new majority only pending the administration felt compelled to make a deal they didn’t like.  Ronald Reagan in eight years never controlled the house and for at least 2 years did not have a majority in the senate to back him up.  Reagan compromised with democrats on spending, tax cuts and treaties not because he loved bipartisanship but because he never had the votes to do anything else.

When Dianne Feinstein wishes for the age of bipartisanship, she is actually pining for the days of democratic control and a cowed conservatism.  She counts on American’s ignorance of history to pull the deception off.