<< ROPE SMOKED ~ MAIN ~ DISOWNERS WELCOMED >>

PALL CAST

Illinois Democrat Rahm Emanuel on Republican gains in recent pre-election polls:

This is making me nervous.

But the Age’s Michael Gawenda anticipates a Republican rout, driven in large part by a scandal involving some church guy:

With less than three days to go before up to 100 million Americans go to the polls to decide whether Democrats or Republicans will control Congress in the last two years of the Bush presidency, controversy, bad news and bad timing continue to dog the Republican Party.

First came the revelation that an evangelical leader paid for sex and bought drugs from a male escort ...

Even as George Bush was campaigning for two embattled Republican House members in Colorado on “values” issues, the Reverend Ted Haggard was being dismissed as the leader of the influential 14,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs — the church he founded 22 years ago. The church’s executive board said he was guilty of “sexually immoral conduct”.

Mr Haggard, 50, resigned late last week as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, a lobby organisation in Washington that put him in regular contact with the White House and George Bush.

He admitted that he had monthly “massages” from a male escort in Denver who also supplied him with metamphetamines, which he reckons he threw away before sampling.

Mr Bush did not mention Mr Haggard in speeches in Greeley, Colorado, but Mr Haggard’s fall from grace cast a pall over these campaign rallies in which Mr Bush was desperate to fire up his party’s conservative base.

Captain Ed has more on this powerfully influential Haggard fellow. Gawenda’s conclusion: “Tomorrow seems almost certain to mark the end of the Republican Party ascendancy in American politics.”

UPDATE. The Apologist comments: “I’ve been an Evangelical all my life and I feel like I’m takin’ crazy pills here. Why does anyone anywhere think some politically active preacher bonin’ some dude has an impact on the election?”

UPDATE II. Latest SMH headline: “Bush can kiss House goodbye.”

Posted by Tim B. on 11/06/2006 at 04:30 AM
  1. Gawenda’s kind of our Stateside Alan Ramsey. If he says down, then up is a pretty safe bet.

    Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2006 11 06 at 04:35 AM • permalink

  2. “Tomorrow seems almost certain to mark the end of the Republican Party ascendancy in American politics.”

    Or not. My prediction, from the comfort of an Australian lounge chair, the Republican party is returned with a diminished majority. Gawenda then moves into telephone clairvoyancy, predicting that Mars will ascend in Uranus.

    Posted by CB on 2006 11 06 at 04:37 AM • permalink

  3. Go the democrats, no stained dresses or sexual pecadillos in their closets. Other than William Jefferson Clinton of course.
    .
    .
    oh and that Kennedy guy.
    .
    .
    on second thoughts, go the Republicans!!!

    Posted by surfmaster on 2006 11 06 at 05:17 AM • permalink

  4. I expect Democrats to win the house, which will mean nothing, as Bush can veto everything he wants to, and Republicans to hold the Senate.

    Given the situation with the war in Iraq, the Foley scandal and other less than ideal situations, if the Democrats don’t pick up more than the average number of seats in the house at the 6 year point of a Presidency - 28 or so - then they can be considered to have failed miserably and will be no hope in 2008.

    Posted by Jack Lacton on 2006 11 06 at 05:24 AM • permalink

  5. The Haggard saga won’t rate even a blip in political circles and will have negligible to zero influence on votes. Zip.
    Republicans reduced majority.

    Posted by saint on 2006 11 06 at 05:25 AM • permalink

  6. Does anyone else think Michael Gawenda looks like a Fathead fish?

    Posted by flying pigs over mecca on 2006 11 06 at 05:31 AM • permalink

  7. There’s something to be said for a Democratic ‘tidal wave’ to sweep the Congress (Senate and all) - two years of petty vengeance and 2008 will be a cakewalk.

    Posted by Ian Deans on 2006 11 06 at 05:51 AM • permalink

  8. #6, well, maybe a bit.

    Posted by Janice on 2006 11 06 at 06:06 AM • permalink

  9. The MSM talk up the Left’s chances at every election. They completely ignore reality and grasp at all sorts of supposed scandals and setbacks that don’t resonate at all with the average voter. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Latham, Kerry, Gore or Beazley. No wonder they go absolutely batsh*t insane when they lose.

    Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 11 06 at 06:10 AM • permalink

  10. #5 saint, I agree. Is this the best they can come up with? Haggard’s admission (even if it was Clintonian) reinforces my belief in the ills of the mega-church, but has no effect on my political viewpoint.

    Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 11 06 at 06:12 AM • permalink

  11. #6 Is that a fish called Gawenda? Some one ought to make a movie..

    Posted by Viril Brun on 2006 11 06 at 06:32 AM • permalink

  12. Like I said, I don’t even know this guy, never heard of him ‘til CNN started yapping about him, sure never heard of him influencing Bush about anything.

    Straws.  Grasping at?

    Posted by ushie on 2006 11 06 at 06:41 AM • permalink

  13. Every now and then Gawenda produces some intelligent insight about the US and I begin to think…

    “Thank Christ there’s somebody at The Age who understands the US.”

    Then he goes and writes sh*t like that and f#cks it all up.

    Posted by murph on 2006 11 06 at 06:44 AM • permalink

  14. Yes, it is interesting to see Dems doing expectation management after their triumphalist tone of the past few weeks.

    That Haggart thing will do nothing to hurt the Republicans, certainly no where near as much as Kerry’s idiocy (s).

    Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge on 2006 11 06 at 06:47 AM • permalink

  15. I put a $100 on the Republicans to retain the Senate and $20 for the House.

    The logic is that if people like Gawenda are predicting a Dem sweep, it’s worth a punt the other way.

    I can’t recall any other field of endeavour where one group can get it so wrong so often.

    Posted by gubbaboy on 2006 11 06 at 07:13 AM • permalink

  16. For the sake of Americans and the world I hope that the Republicans do well and for that reason a Republican victory will give me great pleasure.
    As an Australian, what will give me even greater pleasure is watching stunned Australian news readers trying to hold down their bile as they announce the results.

    Posted by Skeeter on 2006 11 06 at 07:55 AM • permalink

  17. #15 Assuming you want the Republicans to win, you should put money on the Democrats.  That way you win (something) either way.

    Posted by Brett_McS on 2006 11 06 at 08:14 AM • permalink

  18. #16 Someone like Kerry O’Brien on election night is particularly satisfying in that regard.  I’ve forgone that pleasure since I’ve stopped watching anything other than cartoons on TV.

    Posted by Brett_McS on 2006 11 06 at 08:17 AM • permalink

  19. A Pastor getting caught doing something naughty merits a collective shrug from the nation, not much else. This has less than 0% effect on election.

    Posted by debi L. on 2006 11 06 at 08:57 AM • permalink

  20. Then he goes and writes sh*t like that and f#cks it all up.

    There’s a certain disease affecting normally more or less sensible people on the center-left (as opposed to those leftoids who are nuts on any subject)...for the more prone members, bringing up the US in a discussion makes them go batshit-crazy, for the slightly less affected ones it takes the specific mention of Dubya. I suppose the latter variant is generally classified as BDS when encountered stateside. I’m not sure it’s been named when it affects foreigners.

    Anyway, Gawenda definitely belongs in the latter group...I too tend to be pleasantly surprised when he writes about more general US-based subjects, but anytime he delves into politics his articles are straight out of fantasy land.

    Posted by PW on 2006 11 06 at 09:02 AM • permalink

  21. This sky-pilot who’s apparently been caught thumping something besides his Bible must not only be extremely influential, but extraordinarily cunning: I had never heard of him until the story broke in the MSM. This looks to me like a purely local story which has been blown up out of all proportion, a paper bag inflated to the size of the Hindenburg. It seems like the MSM, as usual, is committing politics before an election, and this is a particularly poor specimen of scandal, smacking of desperation. Am buying another bottle of madeira to celebrate the Republicans retaining both houses.

    Posted by paco on 2006 11 06 at 09:03 AM • permalink

  22. I would vote Democrat if:

    1. I was stupid enough to believe anyone who’s life view was built either around institutionalized and organized crime or Marxist ideology.

    2. I thought that making homosexuality the “new normal” was a good thing.

    3. I could trust an organization populated by morons that believe that good comes from lowering all expectations of behavior and/or achievement.

    4. I was a child molester that wanted to support fellow child molesters who were in positions of power to make child molestation the “new normal”.

    5. I was so mindless as to believe that a good economic policy for my nation was to have all citizens give up all their ownings to the government so that the government could provide us what they thought we needed.

    6. I could get on board behind an effort to emasculate my nation’s military during a time of war (or peace even).

    7. I so hated my own nation and culture that I could support those who’s demonstrated goal is to remove my nation’s sovereignty and self determination and demolish our national borders.

    But, since I am not a traitor, nor able to tolerate those that are, I can not vote Democrat.

    Posted by Grimmy on 2006 11 06 at 09:14 AM • permalink

  23. #6 Gawenda’s round n’pink ‘n pretty all right...pretty smug mug.

    Posted by crash on 2006 11 06 at 09:28 AM • permalink

  24. I saw the preacher being dobbed in on ABC by a very “virtuous” male prostitute who glowed with satisfaction as he said “I had to do it..”

    Posted by crash on 2006 11 06 at 09:32 AM • permalink

  25. #11 No a fish called GaWanda…

    Posted by crash on 2006 11 06 at 09:33 AM • permalink

  26. What does this have to do with anything? 

    What if Sean Penn was caught attending a prayer meeting? Does that mean millions of Democrats would stay home on November 7 in...what...protest?

    If Rosie O’Donnell turned out to be a closet heterosexual would Andrew Sullivan vote Republican again?

    What are the supposed, I don’t know, “mechanics” of this “influence”? What is the alleged line of reasoning Evangelicals are going to suddenly turn to? It just makes no sense to me at all.

    I’ve been an Evangelical all my life and I feel like I’m takin’ crazy pills here. Why does anyone anywhere think some politically active preacher bonin’ some dude has an impact on the election?

    Posted by The Apologist on 2006 11 06 at 09:44 AM • permalink

  27. #9

    Couldn’t agree more, Art. I think also a reduced but intact majority in Congress for us in the Grouchy Ol’ Party. And then the moonbats will try to lynch the poor slobs at Diebold, because they’d been promised a victory by the MSM’s Suppress The Vote ‘06 campaign. Unfortunately, with these donkeyholes you never hear the last of anything.

    Anyway: Got my red-white-and-blue elephant-laden gloat tie ready for action Wednesday.

    Posted by SoberHT on 2006 11 06 at 09:56 AM • permalink

  28. #12
    From a newsite for which I forgot to copy the link.

    Time Magazine included Pastor Haggard in their list of the 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America. The Wall Street Journal noted his advisory role with the Bush White House, calling him one “of the nation’s most politically influential” clergy, and Harper’s Magazine wrote, “No pastor in America holds more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism than does Pastor Ted."
    I only follow religion in the U.S. through the MSM and religous press and my own assessment is that (a) I think the influence of Christians/churches on U.S. policy and votes is overstated (the politicking seems to be a different matter) and (b) Haggard only seems to have local rather than national visibility in what seems to be an evangelical enclave in Colorado and (c) whatever Americans call ‘evangelical’ seems at odds with what we call ‘evangelical’ down where I live.
    Posted by saint on 2006 11 06 at 09:57 AM • permalink

  29. I think the guy is quite attractive.  I’d give him one.

    Posted by IanMc on 2006 11 06 at 10:31 AM • permalink

  30. Reading stuff by Gawenda is like reading Paul McGeoch’s contributions in the SMH (for me)

    I automatically think the opposite - a bit like when “The Men of No Appearance” strike I always think they are of ME descent because the SMH would like me to believe they’re not

    Posted by aussiemagpie on 2006 11 06 at 10:46 AM • permalink

  31. And as there was mention of betting further upthread

    Sorry this is really O/T

    The Race that Stops a Nation is on later today here in OZ and for a few minutes there will be no talk of climate, elections, politics except about the weather at Flemington Racecourse and the state of the gardens there, what people are wearing and which famous person ends up “tired and emotional”

    Sorry that’s all the O/T I’ll post - just a bit of light relief

    As for Gawenda and McGeoch - I also always think that they will receive a Walkley because they write with the required attitude to get one

    Posted by aussiemagpie on 2006 11 06 at 10:53 AM • permalink

  32. “Tomorrow seems almost certain to mark the end of the Republican Party ascendancy in American politics.”

    Actually, 2000 marked the end of Republican ascendancy. Since getting both houses of congress and the presidency, they have not managed to add a single elected federal body to their holdings.

    Posted by tim maguire on 2006 11 06 at 10:54 AM • permalink

  33. #32 tim maguire

    Aren’t you forgetting our Oz Federal Government?

    PM Howard is Pres Bush’s deputy sheriff and Pres Bush directs all our policies I’ve heard! (From my moonbat friends)

    Posted by aussiemagpie on 2006 11 06 at 11:01 AM • permalink

  34. #31 aussiemagpie, this is how our culture is being eroded bit by bit, clench ‘n nail, by hamburgers ‘n soda.

    The most important horse race - on the same Tuesday every year - in the most important city in the whole wide world… and the Americans decide to bung on an election.

    Typical!

    Posted by splice on 2006 11 06 at 11:48 AM • permalink

  35. I never heard of Ted Haggard.  Tomorrow, Election Day in the US, we will see what we will see.

    Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 11 06 at 11:52 AM • permalink

  36. #34 splice

    Well said! You would think that someone higher up would have whispered in the ear of whoever organises US elections and told them to lay off for a few days

    This is THE Melbourne Cup for heaven’s sake

    The whole world should be stopped to watch it

    Just think - a few minutes of world peace

    No shooting, no voting, no nothing - just a peaceful horse race

    Posted by aussiemagpie on 2006 11 06 at 12:00 PM • permalink

  37. Yep. And no ululating!

    It’s not a bloody camel race.

    Posted by splice on 2006 11 06 at 12:17 PM • permalink

  38. #37 splice

    There is some symbolism at the Melbourne Cup

    Apparently the Emirates marquee is all done up like Versailles

    But no burnt cars in sight I’d reckon

    Posted by aussiemagpie on 2006 11 06 at 12:34 PM • permalink

  39. I thik the result will be the GOP holds the Senate (with 51 Senators), winning the races in Montana and Maryland (Michael Steele—if he wins, he could be the first Black president or vice president) but losing in Virginia.  I think the Democrats win the House, but no saying by how much.

    That is also my preferred outcome.  I fear if the GOP wins the House, or even very narrowly loses it, the result will be seen as caused by the Foley scandal and some Iraq backlash and there will not be the massive retooling of the conservative message that we need. 

    I have been a conservative my whole life (I was a conservative as a teenager - -that is how boring I was!).  I have migrated across conservativism in that time, settling, for no, in a sort of radical libertarianism combined with a desire to defeat Islamic terrorism.  I think the GOP House leadership especially and President Bush have failed on both. 

    It will be fun to see what happens though as many of the Democratic candidates are somewhat conservative (James Webb, Democratic Senate candidate in Virginia is an out and out right wing dinosaur) and will be at odds with the Democratic leadership.  The only thing I worry is that the Democrats will be far worse, especially given that the house leadership is extremely liberal these days.

    Posted by Room 237 on 2006 11 06 at 12:59 PM • permalink

  40. #32

    One might question whether they actually got both Houses in 2000!

    Posted by yojimbo on 2006 11 06 at 01:07 PM • permalink

  41. #39

    I don’t know that the House leadership is extremely liberal since the only reason you actually have a fence authorization is because it was forced on the Senate and Bush by the House conservatives.  Seems to me that the House, on balance, is the only conservative body in the whole bleeping gov’t.

    Posted by yojimbo on 2006 11 06 at 01:15 PM • permalink

  42. Everyone seems to sanguine about dumping the House and keeping the Senate.  Bleep the Senate and keep the House.

    Posted by yojimbo on 2006 11 06 at 01:18 PM • permalink

  43. There is no real “conservative” vs “liberal” anymore in American politics.

    The only real differentiation is that the DNC is much more willing to do damage to the nation as a whole in order to gain political power.

    The GOP are a cluster gaggle of wastrels, spendthrifts and generally spineless **nts but at least manage to keep some baseline loyalty to “the good of the nation” when it comes to dealing with the foreign enemy.

    Posted by Grimmy on 2006 11 06 at 01:37 PM • permalink

  44. #40, yojimbo: you’re right, I got careless. The republican ascendancy ended in 2002.

    #33, aussiemagpie: you’re right too. I hadn’t considered progress on the republican’s international efforts.

    Posted by tim maguire on 2006 11 06 at 01:46 PM • permalink

  45. Tim Maguire.

    I’m really the one who should restate.  I mixed and matched “convervative” with “Republican”.  Dangerous, incorrect and just plain wrong.  One might make the case that “conservative” ascendancy ended in 1994.

    Posted by yojimbo on 2006 11 06 at 02:32 PM • permalink

  46. Isn’t this the same guy who was assured by “everybody who knew anything”, I paraphrase, that Lamont was going to come back and end Lieberman’s fight for his political life?

    Posted by moptop on 2006 11 06 at 03:31 PM • permalink

  47. Because, you know, we all voted those damn televangelists into, um, televangeling… so it obviously represents a malaise in the electorate…

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 11 06 at 09:39 PM • permalink

  48. If Rosie O’Donnell turned out to be a closet heterosexual would Andrew Sullivan vote Republican again?

    Actually, it’s been revealed that Rosie is actually a male. He’s been doing the lesbian stick cuz no woman will do a guy that ugly…

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 11 06 at 10:59 PM • permalink

  49. Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.