Midterm elections

Remove all ads!

^ He can't run - or were you kidding?

We do this on a county level, and all of ours passed as well. There are some that I voted yes on, and others no. For example, one of the measures was to borrow $6 million (with an "m" not a "b") for refuse collection over the next 4 years. I think that's a reasonable fee to have my garbage picked up, so sure. Other spending bills I disagreed with.

 

Sorry, forgot the smilies. Yeah I know he can't get there, although I don't particularly agree with the law.

 

And now Rumfseld is stepping down.


Good riddance, ****er.

 

Rumsfeld stepping down was not a surprise -- ALL FOUR military newspapers ran editorials on Monday calling for his resignation. I think the lack of confidence in his ability by the military had more to do with his resignation than the elections.

 

BTA, when we lived in Oregon we were going to make up signs that said "Vote yourself a TAX CUT! Vote "NO" on Proposition < >!" and then just fill in the blank with whatever measure was up at the time.

The thing is, they're ALL good cuases, for free money. No one ever looks at where the money is coming from, just what it's supposed to go towards.

 

Finally, the shadows that have obscured the US are being challenged. The relief...

I think it is safe to say all of Europe approves.

 

I think that governments work better with serious opposition or pressure, that's what's been lacking with the current congress and I hope this will bring forth a change in that.

 

Whew the Dems did better than expected. Even the old seat of Tom Delay, which the newspapers counted as leaning republican, is in democratic hands.

Bring on the subpoenas

 

Already anticipated and dodged; hence the shredders visiting Cheney's place back on Oct. 17th.

I will say I'm pleasantly surprised by this result. Now, if only the Dems can keep from being as utterly corrupt (*cough*porkbarrelearmarks*cough*) as the reps were these past few years. Not holding my breath on that score, though.

 

Well, there's one thing I'm taking away from this election...

I can't predict election results for sh*t! In this case, baby, it's great to be wrong.

I hope this finally - FINALLY - brings a little balance to the government for a change. Moderate Dems working with moderate Repubs for the benefit of the majority of Americans. The way it should be.

And though I want the crooked Republican war/pork architects to be held to account as badly as anyone, I have to say that this...

...is exactly the WRONG move.

The last thing this country needs right now is more scandal, more partisan bickering, more finger pointing. The hearings you refer to will ensure that the Dem's new found clout won't last past 2008. The Dems need to prove they can govern more effectively than the Republicans, and they'll do it by being the better man. Not by rubbing the right's nose it it's own sh*t - as the right has been doing to the left since 1996, but by saying "well, now that that nightmare's over, it's time to get to work..." By not stooping to their level, they'll win moderates and (small-c) conservatives alike and put the nails in the coffin of Newt / Grover / Dick's dreams of a permenant conservative majority.

Besides - what will hearings accomplish at this point, aside from an I-told-you-so fest? Not a whole lot. Two years ago it would have meant something - before Iraq was completely beyond hope - but not now. Everyone who could be implicated of wrongdoing are either out of office or on their way out anyway. Particularly in the case of Bush, who couldn't possibly be a lamer duck at this point. It would serve no legitimate purpose and would squander this new momentum. Justice will be served when we elect a moderate Democrat to the whitehouse, and we'll get there by doing exactly the opposite of what the Republicans have been doing...reaching across the isle like grownups and actually doing their jobs.

 

Exactly... the moderates will find they have more in common with the other group than they think... Its the extremists on both sides that screw our country up.

 

Dude, I'm totally into the subpeona project. Sure, the democrats should be nice, be conciliatory, shake hands, etc. But *billions*of dollars (not to mention thousands of lives) disappeared into Iraq. The perpetrators should *not* get off scott free...

Lets pick up some of those rocks and see what vermin were crawling about underneath, shall we?

 

I agree. But is it worth giving the Presidency back to them in two years? All so some already-retiring beaurocrats can get shamed out of office? Because that's exactly what will happen. I'm afraid that all it will do is fire up the right, who'll say "see? This is all the Democrats are about, blame - we need real solutions!" A stupid arguement that will unfortunately work, making all the conservatives who just voted for moderate democrats regret their votes. They'll come back with a vengeance the next time around.

Let's face it: the perpetrators have already gotten off scott free. I see no point in burning down the house to catch a few rats.

I welcome you to try and convince me why it would be a good thing - aside from the obvious moral reasons.

 

And I agree there's a point where investigation becomes counter productive.

On the other hand, look how much political hay the Repubs made off the Democrats, from Whitewatergate to Monicagate, to Karl Rove's non-stop attack machine, to the political ads for this election, to Bush only a few days ago basically saying electing Democrats would help the terr'ists...

Now the Demos have some power, Bush/Rove suddenly come out all conciliatory, "why can't we all get along," something we haven't seen for years. And at a moment where there so many *serious* Republican-related investigations underway. And people won't get off scott free; people are going to jail over Abramoff etc.

So it is a fine line the Demos have to walk. But I think some of these scandals stink so bad, moderate Repubs will be so eager to distance themselves that they'll have no choice but to be supportive...

 

Now the question is what will happen from here? Ideally, Pelosi and Bush will get together, and hammer out a few compromises so that Bush still gets some of what he wants in his last two years, while the left gets some of what they want.

However, this could degenerate into a very adversarial relationship. If Bush truly feels like a lame duck, he can simply veto all the bills that Congress sends to him that he doesn't like. While the Dems now have a majority, they are far, far, short of the 2/3 majority required to over-ride a presidential veto. If Bush does this, then the Democrats will respond in kind, by not allowing any of the bills that Bush wants passed to hit the floor for even a discussion, much less a vote. In this case, we're looking at a do-nothing government - the President won't sign anything that Congress passes, and Congress won't pass anything that the President wants.

Obviously, I'm hoping for the former of those two options. I think it is necessary for the Democrats to accomplish something in Congress to have a leg-up on the Republicans come 2008. If nothing gets done, then the people will say the Democrats are no better than the Republicans, so why should we vote for them? So Point 1 needs to be to accomplish something over the next two years. Point 2 is pick a charismatic politician that has no obvious dirt on him/her, is from somewhere other than the northeast, and is relatively young to connect with voters under 50 to run for President in 2008.

Which means please, please, please, don't pick Hillary. It also means that Kerry is out, and Dean is out. I don't think Edwards can get it done, and I don't think Gore is going to run again. Given the military fiascos of the past few years, America may be reluctant to elect an ex-general like Clark. Biden will run but will not get enough support just like the last two elections. Feingold, IMO, has character and integrity and is one of the most principled men in DC right now, but good luck getting elected with such a Jewish-sounding last name. (Note: I have no idea if Feingold is Jewish or not, probably because it doesn't matter to me. I know he is a good person, which is so much more important than his religion. The fact that he has a Jewish-sounding last name will hurt him, and if he IS Jewish fuhgetaboutit.)

Which means I can think of only one person who fits all of the criteria. Please, Mr. Barack Obama, run for president in 2008. He's originally from Hawaii, but now resides in Illinois, so that's midwest, not northeast. He's 45 years old. He's charismatic, and has no obvious dirt on him - you'd think if there was some, it would have been dug up when he ran for Senator in 2004. The only two negative things that I can find are that he is multi-racial (mother is white, father is African), and that his middle name is Hussein.

I'm sure that there are people that won't vote for him because he's half black. But similarly, I think there's people who won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman. However, while I know women who won't vote for a woman president, I have yet to find a black person who won't vote for a black Democrat. Blacks typically have one of the lowest turn-out rates in elections, and this might get them motivated. I think Obama is the right man for the job.

[ November 09, 2006, 16:11: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Aldeth, I voted for O'Bama here in Illinois. But the country will not elect a black president, especially one who has not proven himself. He needs to complete at least one term, possibly a second in order to be credible enough to take the nod. I think he should run -- but that is primarily because he will shape policy on both sides (he does have a very persuasive personality and can put a lot of important issues at the front of the elections). He could be a credible candidate in 2012 or 2016, though.

For now, I hope McCain will run a good campaign. I don't see anyone else that I trust who can win.

 

Unfortunately, I fear you may be correct. As an aside, what's up with the apostrophe? I've never seen his name spelled with one before. Is that how he really spells it?

 

Sorry, I probably have it wrong -- unless he's secretly Irish....