Reasons For GOP Gratitude

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Bridget Johnson

---

The Democrats won control of the House and Senate. Nancy Pelosi will be the next speaker of the House. Rummy has been retired. John Bolton, probably the flyest ambassador we ever sent to the United Nations, won't even get a fair up-or-down vote from appeasement-happy legislators. And to add a pinch of torture worthy of the Geneva Conventions, we're bombarded by the details of the freaky, tonsil-hockey Scientology wedding of TomKat.

One may wonder, what is there to be thankful for this Turkey Day? It's like signs of the apocalypse are knocking on the screen door (not to mention your relatives) and we're supposed to just dig into the cranberry sauce.

In the interest of encouraging a shot-glass-half-full mentality in these darkening times, everyone should remember the Five Things To Be Thankful for (Even with a Democratic Majority):

1. Al Qaeda endorsed the Democrats' victory. Of course we shouldn't be thankful for the American voters casting ballots in a way that is met with approval from al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Hamza al-Muhajir ("They voted for something reasonable in the last elections," he said), but this episode of Spanish elections redux (post-Madrid train bombings) gives cause to scream "Told you so!" over the gravy to every appeasement-loving lefty this Thanksgiving. It's as simple as mashing potatoes: If al Qaeda hates George W. Bush with such vitriol ("the most stupid president," said al-Muhajir), he must be doing something right. He's scaring them. He's keeping them on the run. He's taking the fight to them. When al-Qaeda starts lashing out at Pelosi as their most bad enemy in the whole wide world, we'll talk.

2. Iran probably won't have nukes by next Thanksgiving. And Benjamin Netanyahu still has a microphone to attempt to warn the clueless of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's nefarious intentions, in the face of entities like the Guardian using wussy terms such as "less-than-dovish demeanour" to describe Iran's nuclear ambitions. Of course, Iran is pressing forward with its plans over anyone's objections, and you may not be thankful that "Iran" doesn't seem to be on the Democrats' lips, but at least Mahmoud is probably thanking his lucky stars.

3. Sen. George Allen, fresh off his defeat by steamy-book-writer Jim Webb, will most likely not be the Republican nominee for the White House in 2008. And that's a good thing, because I want the GOP to keep the White House, and Allen would not win. I admit I never was a champion of his candidacy even before he uttered the "macaca" heard 'round the world. I used to disagree with pundits who lifted him up as the next beacon of light for the GOP just on the grounds that the man is about as exciting as paint thinner. Put against a charismatic, if ideologically lamebrained, Democratic opponent in the presidential race, he would lose. After the Webb race, Allen's political closet is now very obviously stuffed with things for the Democrats to use. And the Republicans can't afford to go into such a key contest already limping.

4. John Murtha's not as cool as he thought. Or as cool as Nancy thought. But the loss (149-86) of the antiwar poster boy to Steny Hoyer for the majority leader post is something to be thankful for, and for a couple of reasons. First, Pelosi, who pushed for Murtha, got eggnog on her face, and that alone was just fun to watch. "Pelosi did not have to choose sides in this fight," wrote David Corn in The Nation. "But because she fiercely lobbied her fellow House Democrats for Murtha — after first saying she would remain neutral in this bitter battle — she begins her tenure as speaker with a loss that was self-inflicted." Second is the possibility that moderation won when it came to war ideology. Perhaps, just perhaps, this means there won't be another impetuous pullout in the spirit of a George McGovern.

5. Saddam Hussein is a dead turkey walking. Soon vast amounts will be saved by nixing the tyrant's Doritos bill, and Ramsey Clark will have to find a new judiciary to annoy. Saddam's appeal — which will take about 20 years less than a capital case in the U.S. — has been proceeding even as European progressives attempt revenge by ludicrously trying to nail Donald Rumsfeld on war crimes. We don't yet know if Saddam will be executed by Christmas, New Year's, or Groundhog Day, but it will be a holiday in Iraq nonetheless (except perhaps in pouty Tikrit).

Feeling better already? It doesn't stop there, as there's much more to be thankful for: You weren't invited to the TomKat wedding. You're not having Thanksgiving dinner with Pelosi and Murtha. You're alive today because you decided not to wait in line for a Sony PlayStation 3. And John Kerry still thinks he's a viable presidential candidate after his "botched joke" (though he still hasn't admitted that his 2004 White House run was a botched joke).

And thank goodness for all these reasons for thanksgiving, because things aren't bound to look up anytime soon. Hugo Chavez is about to re-elect himself president. Charlie Rangel is the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee (where's that bottle of Kennedy cheer?). And T.M.X. Elmo promises to turn Toys "R" Us into Sadr City this Christmas season.

Okay, go ahead and drown those Democratic-majority sorrows in the pumpkin pie.


By Bridget Johnson
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online

[sharncedar]

Would I post a comment on this war? You might ask would I send a fig newton to Walmart? But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my dog to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in drag? Of course. Because I'm freaking insane. Totally, totally, insane. And I'm driving everyone else insane by repeating my post. Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? Perhaps. Depends on whether I get to wear a nurse's uniform. I don%u2019t know. Ask my sister. She was a Jacobitess in her last life. The fact that we can find WMD is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. I can't tell you those reasons 'cause the turtle who visits my dreams told me not to say. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. See, that was some good comedy. They have been resolutely wrong, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front, being a big one. But now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground, and also occupied the upwind position, I judge from the smell. Yet... my dog is still in Iraq. Why?... I'm waiting.

[bushsucks13]

Would I send my dog to this war? You might ask would I send him to WW II? Or Vietnam? You might even ask if I am a nutcase. Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your dog to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my dog to go to war. Hell, I can't even teach him to fetch. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to write dumb posts about Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Yes! I'm not equivocating, only saying that if I am really wacked out on drugs. And I have nightmares of battle (from my past life in the nuthouse). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Depressed that they are going to be blown to pieces for no reason. But I do strongly believe that a country, ummm, sorry, lost my train of thought there. Oh yeah! There is no failure in Iraq, unless we leave before the job is done. Then we would lose, which I think may be the opposite of win. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a really bad idea, that's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been desolute, something I have seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front, being a big one. Yes the traitors... or was I thinking potaters? Yes, that's it!! I am really hungry, gotta go. We're still in Iraq? Why?... I'm waiting.

[bushsucks13]

Would I send my dog to this war? You might ask would I send him to WW II? Or Vietnam? You might even ask if I am a nutcase. Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your dog to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my dog to go to war. Hell, I can't even teach him to fetch. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to write dumb posts about Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Yes! I'm not equivocating, only saying that if I am really wacked out on drugs. And I have nightmares of battle (from my past life in the nuthouse). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Depressed that they are going to be blown to pieces for no reason. But I do strongly believe that a country, ummm, sorry, lost my train of thought there. Oh yeah! There is no failure in Iraq, unless we leave before the job is done. Then we would lose, which I think may be the opposite of win. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a really bad idea, that's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been desolute, something I have seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front, being a big one. Yes the traitors... or was I thinking potaters? Yes, that's it!! I am really hungry, gotta go. We're still in Iraq? Why?... I'm waiting.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to WW II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front, being a big one. But now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?... I'm waiting.

[egresor]

here are a few quotations to be thankful for.

James Inhofe, (Rep Oklahoma) on pesticide residues in food:
"We're not going to worry.....Now that Tom Delay is gone it's up to Oklahoma to stand tall for DDT."

Pete Domenici, (Rep NM) on coastal drilling for oil:
Saying that New Mexico did not have any coastal beaches. "Why should the burden fall on us? Now it's Florida's turn." Did you hear that Jeb Bush?

Richard Pombo (Rep. Cal.) Committee on Resources:
"It's time those hapless toads learned how to get along with the rest of us." Shades of 'Silent Spring' anyone?

Ted Stevens, (Rep.Alaska) on pork barrel highway bridges to nowhere:
"We have more nowhere in Alaska than any other state and we need access to every bit of it."

Rep. Charles Taylor (Rep. NC) on US forests resources:
"We're going to stay the course: Our emphasis will remain on subsidizing big timber companies."

Joe Barton (Rep. Texas) on coal fired plants mercury cleanup (on mercury diminishing intelligence):
"Don't hold your breath"...."Voters are plenty smart. They keep electing me, don't they."

Peter King (Rep. NY) on requiring nuclear&chemical plants to guard from terrorist attacks:
"you can forget it"....If these patriotic companies are willing to risk their facilities....we should applaud their bravery."

Conrad Burns on sewage from water sources:
"nothing meaningful will be done"....Americans can buy drinking water with their tax cuts."

Were you thankful for those guys Bridget Johnson?

[egresor]

you forgot one of the most significant things to be thankful for......

G.W.Bush is now officially a lame duck and has lost control of Congress!

Maybe now some of the huge damage his policies have done to this country will be brought to the forefront---and that being in every aspect----the war, terrorism, the economy, and the environment.

(not saying this about all of them---but) The Republicans are like the aliens in the movie 'They Live'. Sleep.....Sleep....Sleep. Be productive. Do not question your leaders.....Sleep....Sleep.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to WW II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front, being a big one. But now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?... I'm waiting.

[ibcrazybones]

Ya, he must have snapped after the elections.

[mrthornman]

good old bushrocks1

He has that old cut-n-paste down to an art. This is about the 6th time I have seen it posted. Weird.

[webepartying]

Nice piece of Hackery. Also, according to Ron Suskind, the CIA consensus is that OBL deliberatly engineered a terrorist video designed to engineer a Bush reelection in 2004. So I wouldn't be so quick on the whole, the Democrats are Al-Queda's party thing. But nice job Bridget, maybe you can take Tony Snow's job when he steps down--being well practiced in right wing mouthpiece hackery.

Warmest regards,

-Patrick