Coulter dismissed Democratic electoral gains as "pathetic" by historical standards -- is she right?
comments powered by Disqus
Max J. Skidmore - 11/13/2006
Well, as a political scientist I must point out the great difficulty in defeating sitting House members. Most districts have been sufficiently gerrymandered that there is relatively little chance of true competition. That makes the Democratic gain truly impressive. With regard to the Senate, not only did the Democrats pick up six seats, they did so by defeating six incumbent senators--another major feat. Thus, I would be cautious in minimizing Democratic gains. They seem truly to have reflected public dissatisfaction with the governing party's policies. They likely also reflect outrage regarding the multiple examples of corruption, and a general perception of incompetence in the administration.
Mike Schoenberg - 11/12/2006
Iraq is only one of the problems ths election was about. From corruption to the post-Katrina effert or the lack there of, rising defedits, so called smaller government, bridges to nowhere as well as a health plan that is really broken the Republicans have nothing to be proud of. As for this accusation of the Democrats having no plan for Iraq, what is the Republicans? A week ago it was stay the course and Bush claiming to behind Rumsfeld before he did a Mike Brown on him. Now it's all cards are on the table as Bush sees the light.
Joe Caramello - 11/12/2006
I find myself in agreement with Ms Coulter's comments. I really thought the Democrats would make more gains than they did in the House and Senate. I think that they did not because they did not put forth a viable plan to get our people out of Iraq. What do you folks think?
Bill Heuisler - 11/11/2006
Losing Lincoln Chafee is like losing a bad back. Watching the Dems elect Jim Webb while dissing Lieberman was worth the loss for the Repubs. After all, Webb was the man who refused to shake Kerry's hand and is one of the most highly decorated Marines in the VN War. Watching Reid try to control Jim and Joe will be lots of fun.
As you say: small pleasures.
s c mckinn - 11/11/2006
While Ms. Coulter has her following, I stopped paying attention to her rantings long ago. Many people of substantive thought generally recognize that her strong bias and divisive style marginalizes her. As a result, I find her an irritant, rather than a serious student of current events. For good or ill, something that hasn't happened in almost 100 years has occurred again; party control has switched in both houses. It's unlikely Ms. Coulter will do much to help the country move forward in a positive way; her appears to thrive on creating divisions rather than gaining the necessary consensus to solve problems.
Lorraine Paul - 11/11/2006
I had forgotten about Coulter having her nose put out of joint by a Dem win! Ah! yes! life does have its small pleasures. Not quite as satisfying as Rummy's departure but up there nonetheless!!
John Edward Philips - 11/11/2006
Coulter just says outrageous things, including obvious lies, to sell her books. More proof that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public, I guess.
Maurice Isserman - 11/11/2006
Yes, well, she would say that wouldn't she. Reminds me of Bertolt Brecht's reaction to the suppressed workers' revolt in East Germany in 1953:
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
Michael Green - 11/11/2006
She's wrong, but Coulter is pathetic by any standards.
- Did a historian who said he’s a victim of McCarthyism get the story wrong?
- Stephanie Coontz’s work on the history of marriage cited by the Supreme Court.
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- David Hackett Fischer wins $100,000 prize for lifetime achievement in military writing