Democrats Take House, Senate Undecided 1090
Every news publication on earth is saying mostly the same thing. The Democrats have taken the house picking up a sizable number of seats. But the Senate remains a tossup with a few undecided seats holding the balance. Concerns of voter fraud have been heard from around the nation as well.
Will they be able to make things better? (Score:4, Insightful)
In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me explain what was happening before. The Republicans owned all three branches of the government--House, Senate & Presidential seat. They didn't have 2/3 majority in both the House & Senate but it put the rest of the country in a really bad spot. You see, the three branches were put in place so that no one party/person could go nuts and foul up the country.
What has been happening as of late, is that bills are flying through all three branches and being approved. Some of these are good for Republicans, some aren't. Some of the things George W. Bush has been doing are aligned with his party and some weren't. The problem is that since "his party" was the majority, they were expected to pass whatever he proposed.
Compounding on these problems, it seems the Democrats were resigned that this would happen after their defeat in a lot of prior elections.
The fact is, I don't want anything to fly through the process of passing bills. I want there to be a large discussion before it becomes law. Recently, I've seen headings that say, "Bill passed that allows president to do X" and my response was, "When the hell was that even proposed? Oh, six days ago? That's aweful fast!"
The Democrats have a majority in one branch now, I don't care who gets the Senate. Let's just keep a nice balanced government. I'm not naive enough to think that this process actually works but I do know that as of late it's been really crappy--probably for both parties. I'd like to see the Republicans take the Senate, the Democrats have the House & let whatever nut jobs we want to be president.
So if you call yourself Republican, just remember that the other half of the country is Democrat--and it benefits you to keep them happy. A balanced government is more important for my health than balanced meals.
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing will get done. Bush still has the VETO stamp. Its been sitting in his desk draw barely used for the last 6 years. I am sure it is going to get a major workout in the next two. This is not a bad thing, government is best when it does least.
Divided government is good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're democrats, not magicians.
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, "we'll see".
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately it's been sitting in there next to his stack of signing statements which HAVE been heavily used over the last 6 years.
If nothing else, maybe the new Congress will actually put this signing statement bullshit in check.
Re:I, for one,... (Score:1, Insightful)
And Lieberman is officially badass now. He fought the two-party borg and won.
I pity the Democrats (Score:1, Insightful)
The budget is also a disaster. Our foreign debt is huge. We aren't going to be able to afford the social security and medicare that we will need when we retire. The Democrats can raise taxes, which won't be popular and runs the risk of borking the economy, or they can abandon social security and medicare, which also won't be popular (at least with the grey hair set, which is where we're all going if we're lucky).
Two years from now, at the next election, the public is going to perceive that the Democrats haven't fixed the ills that beset us and consign them back to the wilderness.
Democrats have the benefit of the doubt... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm actually very glad that we have such close races in this election - this makes for one of the best possible cases for both parties to demand drastic changes in the standards needed for the voting process. Especially in the case of the 'electronic' voting machines and optical scanners using software like GEMS, and with extremely lax enforcement of standards across the board. Even without the expected cases of shennanigans, I hope we can expect some level of bi-partisan smackdown of these dangerously flawed voting systems.
Ryan Fenton
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:3, Insightful)
Get over yourself, and let the rest of us enjoy the "News"-part of the slogan, kthnxby
exactly like it should be! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Divided government is good (Score:2, Insightful)
Thats exactly, why I am a fan of the Democrats. Not that they always get it 100% right on those counts, but at much better than the otherside. Its basically one of those "the enemy of enemy is my friend" deals.
I say this as an ex-Republican who had to leave the party after they went bat shit crazy and decided to start doing exactly what they are supposed to be against.
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more like: Lobbyists write new laws; congress votes for them in exchange for campaign donations.
Re:I switched from Coke to Pepsi!! (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree wholeheartedly.
"(e.g. bringng in medicare like every other developed nation)"
I.e. North Korea, Cuba, and the defunct Soviet Union? I guess there's Canada too (and what a crappy system it is, I can tell you as a Canadian).
Re:Stock Market (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
There's one small problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
THEY'RE ALL POLITICIANS!!!
Re:I, for one,... (Score:3, Insightful)
Lieberman votes with Democrats on 90% of the issues, therefore he's a solid Democrat. The national Democratic leadership didn't like his stance on the war with Iraq. That one issue got the angry left riled up enough to vote for Lamont in the primary, but when push came to shove and the majority moderate Democrats saw what was happening, they voted in the "real" election for the guy that best represents them. He'll caucus with Democrats, which is as it should be.
Re:I switched from Coke to Pepsi!! (Score:1, Insightful)
At least they all seem to want to spend my money like Democrats... And the whole 'compassionate conservative' crap is just Republicans outdoing the Democrats at being Democrats (except for the gay rights and abortion thing, which gets the public attention but is only a minor battle...).
Re:Dear Blogosphere: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong. Any person on the senate who switches side every once and a while becomes "the powerful person in the senate". No senate vote is guaranteed (otherwise why vote?). Lieberman is a great example for this, even though he was a "democrat" how many times did he vote in line with the republican majority?
In my opinion its better for people to show their true colors. If he is gray, he should be gray not blue.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Divided government is good (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Insightful)
Over the last 100 years, US political power has been domainated by the republicans and the democrats together. Neither party dominated by itself; they shared in the power over this period. This trend continues today in full force, as does the trend for expansion of power. Every year there are thousands more laws on the books than the year before, thousands more ways for a peaceful individual to become a criminal.
Given this near-exponential growth of the US government, it is clear that both parties are primarily driven by power -- otherwise, why would they have fought so hard to expand their powers over the past century? If they valued the freedom of the individual more than their own power, then logically, the incredible growth of the US government over the past century wouldn't have been possible. If even one of the two dominant parties actually worked to reduce, rather than expand government power over the individual, then wouldn't they have cancelled each other out?
Of course that's not the case. So let's answer your question: Will the democrats be able to make things better, or will they only be able to keep things from getting worse?
You're going to have to deny history to come up with a positive answer on either count. I'll bet my life that when the democrats are finished, the US government will be (drum roll please) bigger, more powerful (measured in both revenue and power over the people), and last but not least, there will be yet even more ways for peaceful individuals to become criminals.
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I, for one (Score:5, Insightful)
That ain't gonna help you. It just means that you didn't get to vote.
You may welcome your new overlords again now.
Re:Dear Blogosphere: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Dude, have you got clue #1 what's in that piece of work?"
To which the reply is: "Hey, I won't read it if you don't. That's why we have staff."
Awful lot of power wielded by people whose names and ideology remain hidden...
Voter Fraud? How about /. Summary Fraud? (Score:4, Insightful)
WTF was this little gem thrown into the summary? Not only does the article not mention fraud at all (if it did, I blinked...), but according to CNN, Number of civil rights voting complaints 'low' [cnn.com].
With a summary like that, seems like the editor is angling for a new job at Fox News...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:3, Insightful)
The more accurate satement would be if the Republicans will get voted out of the exective branch next term.
Re:I, for one,... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, investigations are politically nasty and interfere with getting other work done. Yes, many investigations are about political payback and have nothing to do with actual lawbreaking. But when a REAL crime has been committed, shouldn't there be an investigation? Or should the law not apply to politicians because they can always say "it's all just political"?
Frankly, I suspect crimes HAVE been committed. Therefore I want investigations, and if the evidence warrants it, impeachments and convictions. I honestly couldn't care less how it plays politically--crime should stop paying.
Re:I pity the Democrats (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stock Market (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're referring to the claim that companies with "blue" managers outperformed others significantly. I don't have the Slate article, but this [blueinvest...gement.com] is the prospectus for the fund.
Now, here's why you shouldn't buy it (the argument, or the fund):
1) They've based this on FIVE YEARS of market history. In terms of the stock market's history, that's nothing. The last five years are not representative of the market's performance. For example, the S&P's historical return is over 10 percent, but in the last five years it was ~6.5%, about the same as bonds.
2) The fund promoter doesn't seem to understand what would count as a valid explanation for the perceived phenomenon (which, again, they got from only five years). The prospectus proposes that democrat-leaning CEO's "better understand employee needs" and crap like that, but that would't explain excess returns. To explain excess returns you would need to explain why that better management *is not already accounted for in the stock's price*. Even if that has historically happened, how do you know investors haven't "learned their lesson" by now and quit undervaluing that kind of manager? It's common for theories to backtest well and blow up when you try them.
If you really want to invest in "socially responsible" companies, go to vanguard.com and look up their "social index fund" (under stock funds). You get the benefits of low-cost indexing, plus you'll only be investing in companies that were pre-screened for social and environmental criteria. But don't expect to do consistently better than the rest of the market.
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:4, Insightful)
My point? If Bush dusts off his veto pen, it certainly won't be because the democrats are calling for expansion of power. And given history, it is quite unlikely that the democrats will be calling for reduction of power. (Of course they'll throw us a few bones here and there to give the appearance, but I guarantee that when all is said and done, government will be -- drum roll please -- more expensive and more powerful, just as it has nearly every susecutive year for the past 100 years).
someone lying = basis of government (Score:3, Insightful)
Makes no difference where the politicians tell their lies. It's all the same to me.
Re:I switched from Coke to Pepsi!! (Score:3, Insightful)
"(e.g. bringng in medicare like every other developed nation)"
I.e. North Korea, Cuba, and the defunct Soviet Union? I guess there's Canada too (and what a crappy system it is, I can tell you as a Canadian).
ie Japan,New Zealand,Australia,Luxembourg,Ireland,Denmark,Austr ia,Finland,Belgium,Netherlands,United Kingdom,Germany,Sweden,France,Italy,Spain,Greece.
Canada has a system where there is also very little private delivery of health care and is against the law to bill the end user for health care that the government provides. Most other countries allow private delivery in parallel to their universal themes.
Re:Not a suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah - there was absolutely no public discussion of the Partriot Act, was there?
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:4, Insightful)
Granted, the correct answer is to cut government spending, but that's something that will take a lot more political muscle to pull off.
Repugnacans Got Just Deserts - Demoncrats Didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
The Republicans had control of both houses of congress, the presidency, and "right wing" majority in Supreme Court. In other words, they had a monopoly on power in the United States? Did they live up to their "party platform?" NO THEY DIDN'T!!! Rather than reduce the size and scop of government they have made the government size and scope the largest in U.S. history. As far as abortions and "gay marriage," the carnage continues at abortion mills, and NO LAW was passed to prevent "gay marriage." In fact, the Bush administration has appointed the largest number of openly gay people to office. The Republicans claim that they were tough on Muslim extremeists, yet they voted to outsource our nation's security to Arab companies while at the same time passing unconstitutional laws that intrude upon American freedoms. Christians and other moral majority type people fell for the Republican con plain and simple, and the Republicans did not keep their promises as a party. As a result, FED UP voters rightfully threw their sorry asses out of office
The problem I have with the election, however, is the fact that Demoncrats were elected in their place
I call the state of American politics the "swinging pendulum of sameness." When voters become fed up with the lies, deceit, and corruption of the Democrats, they fall for the lies, deceit, and corruption of the Republicans. It is the same game, but with a different name. The main difference between each political party is which group of voters they target with their empty campaign promises and lies, deceit, and corruption. Each election, voters are still stupid enough to actually swallow these lies. It is the stupidity of voters that allow these assholes to get away with all their crap. I am sure that this post will be modded down or catagorized as a troll. So be it. However, that still does not change the fact that the American voters as a whole are still stupid. Most believe that they have no choice but to vote the "Lessor of Two Evils." ost are also too lazy to do research on the candidates on the ballot even when sample ballots are available weeks in advance. If they would actually take about 15 minutes to do research, they would see that they never even heard of the majority of the candidates on the ballot. This is because the vooice of these candidates are squelched by the mainstream media. In fact, most media outlets will not even list them as being in the race.
I did my research this election, and I found several alternative party or independent candidates who had very good ideas. I also found quite a few who were plainly kooks. I told people about the candidates that I like as well as the other alternative ones. Most people's reactions were, "but they have no chance of winning. You are throwing away your vote." I say that they are throwing away th
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ahh.. and that would be what? Ruling by jackasses?
An education system controlled by jackasses?
Re:I switched from Coke to Pepsi!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:2, Insightful)
So, he can tell researchers that they can't say global warming exists, or that pollution is causing people to die, etc. That sounds like maintaining the status quo to you? It sounds to me like an attempt to mislead people by not allowing freedom of information.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dear Blogosphere: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the Democrats (as a national party) don't learn that lesson and move to center, they will lose power again. Just as the Republicans gained power in 1994 with (more-or-less) centrist candidates, and then lost it as they kept going too far to the right.
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, the law may read "Noone in the employ or contracted by any part of the Federal governmeny may torture any person in their custody" with the usual dozen pages of verbiage defining what "custody" and "torture" mean. Then Bush writes "I will interpret the law as if noone means anyone", and signs it.
If that's not writing new laws, I don't know what is.
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Insightful)
All the government did was borrow money to inject into the economy. They didn't decrease spending, they increased it. And I'll bet that many of them got a hell of a lot richer in the process. If you want lower taxes, tell them to cut spending. If you want to cut spending, tell them to cut the thing that takes over half of the budget: the military. Guess what? That won't happen. People in the US are so brain washed that we have to control the world that they'll never let that happen. The other thing is military contracts are a sizable chunk of the US manufacturing jobs. If you cut military budget, you cut jobs in every state. That'll be real popular. It doesn't matter that if we cut the military in half, we'd still out spend everyone else and have no deficit. Plus there's the whole pride BS: Military BIG! Penis BIG! AGHHHH! Me Crush YOU!
So, I'd say you can pretty much live with your taxes. They're never going to go down long term. You might get some short term bribes from politicians, but eventually, the bills have to be paid.
Re:American citizens not so disconnected afterall (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm... please, wait a few months after these folks get in office before you say stuff like this. In most likeliness this isn't the grand revolution you think it is. If the word "Democrat" or "Republican" puts either fear or hope in you by it's mere utterance you're fooling yourself just as much as the American voter.
There are tons of Rs and Ds that hard to tell apart even if you have a good understanding of the American political landscape. And frankly with the current problems a "change of the guard" isn't going to solve much. The current problems in the US are going to take a long long time to resolve and if you do it right (by not letting the pendulum swing too far to one side or the other) it's going to take much longer. Unfortunately Joe Sixpack has little interest in doing things right and his voting record normally shows this.
Even as bad as the world opinion is about the US and our Republican party I see a good chance that the Republicans are going to have a hold on politics for the foreseeable future including the presidential elections. Having a new Republican president or presence isn't really a bad thing but with a close cut legislation there is going to be tons of in-fighting and little progress will be made. Sure, we need to get at least some Patriot Act reform if not repeal, But if the Democrats take a large section of control we're going to have as many problems with their own little game they like to play with the Bill of Rights.
It's nearly a no win situation. We need voices outside of party lines and we need voters to look outside of their party for solutions.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:3, Insightful)
-JMP
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Insightful)
But even assuming the Democrats pull together and show brilliant leadership and vision (and I'm not holding my breath), it would take years to undo Bush's damage. I think a key issue to watch is going to be Rumsfeld. It's clear his strategies have failed, repeatedly; he needs to be held accountable. And it's clear he can't fix things in Iraq. He has to go. Bush's instincts will be to protect him, because Bush rewards loyalty (a good character, to a point) and because Bush thinks that firing him would be an admission of failure, and Bush does not admit failure (but admitting failure is a technicality at this point, Rumsfeld and Bush's efforts in Iraq so far have failed utterly).
4 words to the Dems (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, they have a chance to at least put a brake on one of the most incompetent and reactionary administrations in US history (worse even than Nixon).
They better make good use of it.
Re:Repugnacans Got Just Deserts - Demoncrats Didn' (Score:3, Insightful)
The "You're throwing away your vote!" garbage gets me real steamed. You should always vote for the best person (not necessarily candidate, as some would take that as being someone who can win) according to your beliefs. If that happened, we wouldn't be in the messes we are in now. We have a "Extreme right wing" president who is afraid of or undesirous of standing up for conservative principles. We had a Republican Legislature trying to forward the concept of a Mommy-state while spending all of their time trying to figure out how to "bring home the bacon". Supposed "Conservatives" who supposedly cherish our System but refuse to ensure the enforcement of laws regarding immigration, pass bills restricting our privacy and freedoms, and appear to be just as beholden to various industries and organizations who obviously can't win them elections with financial support.
On the other hand, the Democrats will be no better. They are beholden to the same industries and organizations. They will have the same lobbyists courting them. Sure, they will try to rapid-fire impress some folks with a few quick moves. But even if they take the White House in 2008, we won't see much real change.
Except that when your parents pass away and leave you the house, you will magically owe the government money.
I agree that the only way to fix this, barring a leader who has the will and charisma and popular support of the people who can force change in the party, is to support alternative parties. Unfortunately, many promising people feel it is easier to take a party over from within, and push it to victory. This is sometimes the case, and certainly parties can be moved by strong personality to effect real changes. Ronald Reagan, for example, was able to shove the Republican party and create a short term change in their true tack. But often, once that personality leaves, the river starts to return to its original course. Here's a history tip for the young among you: Republicans weren't always enamored of tax cuts. Nor were they proponents of reducing the size of government. As you can see, some tax cutting attitudes remain. But the government reduction now seems to have been reduced itself to a talking point.
If Republican candidates hadn't drifted so far from the right, the Conservative base would have kept the party in full control. If people ignored the ridiculous campaign ads, educated themselves, and voted their conscience, we probably wouldn't have the Republican and Democrat parties in power, or at least the parties themselves would be vastly different.
Vidar
Re:Not a A Macacaphonic Chorus (Score:3, Insightful)
The Loyal Opposition was not given a sufficient mandate to, say, impeach the Bush outright, but merely prune it a bit.
Somebody on the left has got to be miffed at the 20k+ Green party voters. If they'd thrown their lot in with Webb, the conversation would be much closer to finished.
OTOH, it would be nice to have more choice in my voting experience system.
Re:Repugnacans Got Just Deserts - Demoncrats Didn' (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, ok, one of several reasons for his actions there, but a significant one.
Re:Not a suprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that utterly astonishing ~2/3rds of all USians who accepted the notion that Iraq was involved in 9/11. It shook my faith in everything from Christian decency to the laws of statistics; apparently we live in Bizarro Lake Woebegon, where much more than half of the population is below average.
IMO, the Democrats' single largest failure (out of oh so many) in the past 5 years was that unopposed mass brainwashing. The world would be a better place if we could cordon off downtown DC, grab all of the fundamentalists on the right the and invertebrates on the left, then ship them to a pacific island to be volcanic sacrifices and/or Hanso lab rats.
Hardly. (Score:5, Insightful)
GREEN Party (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:3, Insightful)
NO. Why, because Bush has not had his way with congress, even though Republicans controlled both houses they had 2/3 of neither. I don't expect anything to change in that respect. What you can now expect is investigations into everything. If you thought the 90's were bad, you haven't seen anything yet.
You've got war all wrong.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Later on, as victory became less about the actions of groups of determined men carrying sharp and pointy things, and more about the ability to mobilize and deploy highly mechanized forces (the three best American generals of WW2: General Foods, General Motors, General Electric) it was almost as important to deny an enemy the use of his industrial production base as it was to defeat his armies in the field. This ushered in an era where targeting essentially civilian enterprises was militarily acceptable if it resulted in damage to military production. Merge this with the concept that the state had the right and ability to conscript every male between 16 and 55(ish) into military service, and you have 20th century Total War.
Total War is, indeed, brutal and ruthless, as you are effectively pitting the entire population, technical, agricultural, and industrial capabilities of states against each other.
But more recent actions are not about all-out state-vs-state contests. Instead, you are looking at state-vs-uninstitutionalized factions, where victory is not measured by reducing an opposing state's armies and industrial centres to ash, but rather, in converting an undecided third party (the "normal" citizens of the host state) into seeing things your way and conducting themselves accordingly.
This is "hearts and minds" stuff. You aren't in the game of killing everything in sight. Instead, you are in the game of reducing the freedom of your enemies to act and denying them support, while simultaneously trying to improve the quality of life of the citizens of the host nation.
It is in the conversion of the host people that the game is won or lost. If everybody wants the insurgents to win, then they will - you are an army of occupation and they will eventually bleed you dry. If everybody wants the insurgents to lose, then they will - insurgents rely on the support of locals to survive. And when you have an undecided populace, where some support you and some support the insurgents... well, then you have Iraq and Afghanistan today.
And experience has shown that heavy-handedness - "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out"; "those that run are VC, those that stand their ground are well-disciplined VC" - plays into the hands of the insurgents, as every injustice done to an innocent creates support for the insurgents.
A man who supports you and who wants to see the insurgents stopped will change his tune when a 1000lb bomb dropped on the "insurgent stronghold" across the street flattens his home and kills his family - even if there really WERE insurgents across the street that were legitimate targets.
Tactics that were entirely acceptable in the Total War days are now not only unacceptable in the Three Block War days, but are actually counterproductive.
The main goals in Iraq have to be the restoration of basic infrastructure, the training and fielding of an effective, corruption-free Iraqi police force, the cleanup and rebuilding of damaged and destroyed buildings, and the establishment of effective government. Until those are done, you cannot win.
Is there still a need for troops? Hell yes - all those infrastructure and reconstruction efforts will be actively opposed by insurgents, and there is a dire need for security and protection for those actors. But that's a different role than a massed armoured spearhead charging into the Fulda Gap.
DG
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your point is invalid, though. Just because things could be worse doesn't mean they're not horrible. Things could always be worse. The whole world could blow up, but hey at least we didn't lose the sun.
Anyone who thinks things are going well in Iraq is retarded. Anyone who thinks the home of the free has never been freer is retarded. And you're not helping by mocking those who are pointing out blindingly obvious problems.
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:4, Insightful)
One way out is to give up. This will make us look weak. (The reality is, when it comes to controlling what happens inside other countries we are weak).
The other way out is to be ruthless. Worse than Saddam Hussein ruthless. Even if we had the stomach for this, it might not work without at least some support from some of the population. (Saddam had the support of his Baath party). It would be pretty horrible to be worse than the govenment we (rightfully) called so evil.
The only other option is to stay the course. Essentially, influence Iraq the best we can without giving up or becoming evil. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee we'll get the results we want. (In fact, it currently looks like it won't). In addition, who knows how many lives it will cost? It's a pretty expensive gamble.
Anyone with half a brain could have predicted this before we invaded Iraq. (Just ask G. Bush, Sr.) Unfortionately, we broke it, and now we bought it. I don't see any good solutions. The best suggested I've seen was mentioned by the senator who was interviewed here recently. He suggested letting the Iraqqies (sp?) vote. If they want us to leave, we'll leave. There's no disgrace in doing what the Iraqqies want us to. If they want us to stay, then it might not solve everything, but at least it will give us some legitimacy.
Re:Not a A Macacaphonic Chorus (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why is it a shame? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe I'm just too cynical....it all reminds me of the Simpsons episode where they had to vote between the two aliens....it's funny and sad because it's true.
Greens are the Moderate Party (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people I know dislike Libertarians because they're seen as economically too right-wing. That is, the whole personal economic freedom thing is great, but people want social economic responsibility enforced as well, i.e. a social safety net of some sort, which the libertarians don't seem too fond of. The greens are more economically moderate, and as you'd expect from just statistical distribution, most people have moderate views of some sort or another.
Incidentally, I'd say that what we call "socially liberal" is actually quite socially moderate, hence it's popularity; only a few of the most radical anarchistic liberals say that "people should be able to do whatever the want to long as they aren't harming others, and there should be no system in place to catch those who do try to harm others and protect those in danger of coming to harm". Fewer still say simple "people should be able to do whatever they want, period, even if it hurts others". Most everybody favors the existence of some sort of police, and emergency services like firefighters, and nobody wants complete anomie; all of which would be more liberal positions than even libertarians hold.
Which doesn't make them better positions mind you, at least in my book - there has to be a proper balance between personal freedom and social responsibility and too little of either (or conversely, too much of the other) will give equally bad results. Too much "social responsibility" - when you start not only supporting the needs and general wellbeing of a society, but also giving in to it's arbitrary whims - leads to authoritarian tyranny of the majority, and is just as bad as the anarchy in the above extremes. (Consider it analogous to giving your child what it needs, which is a responsibility and thus somewhat a limit on your freedom, versus giving your child everything it demands, which would go beyond mere responsibility and make you a whipped parent). Apply this same line of reasoning (something the likes of which I suspect lies in the back of most people's minds) to economic issues and you'll see why more moderate economic stances are more popular than either of the extreme capitalist or extreme socialist positions.
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:4, Insightful)
Despite the siren song of a huge economic boom and tax surplus, Clinton mostly cut federal spending. Bush, conversely, has increased spending, borrowing, and deficits to absurd and unprecedented levels.
You may want to revisit your stereotypes about which is the party of fiscal responsibility.
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:1, Insightful)
You don't believe me? Then tell me what happened to Kerry's brilliant plan that was going to deal with Iraq and other issues he campaigned against Bush with in 2004. Nothing that was so good then was ever introduced on the floor to get the chance of being shut down. Nothing that the democrats ran on this year has ever been introduced to be shit down. Sure there was a few withdraw our troops resolutions but nothing addressing any of the problems. If the democrats were actually going to make a difference, then they would have tried by now. They haven't and don't plan on it. And i contend that if they have such a better way, holding out on it unless they regain power is just enabling the current administration! They would be just as much the cause of all their grief as the other side is.
This election was won by scrutinizing the current policy and they have no different ideas except obstructing the current administration in order to get elected and power back. Nancy Pelosi just made a speech while I am writing this saying "it is now time to stop the slogans" knowing there is nothing they will or can do significantly different. She doesn't want to be caught up in the same demonizations they portrayed on the republicans. Howard Dean last night made a statement saying "there isn't much we can do about Iraq without control of the presidency". Now this either means they don't see how they can do anything or they are already making excuses on why they will be running on Iraq on 2008. Senator Lieberman was re-elected over the anti war opposition who took his democratic candidacy on his home state because people know we need leaders willing to work together and not obstruct any processes for political gain.
You will see a few party line votes but much more broad based supported votes were the majority comes from both sides of the isle. This isn't because everything will be stopped before it can be placed on the floor but because they aren't going to do things much differently. The oppositions we are going to see is going to be to the details of laws like amounts of funding, responsible parties and oversight. The meat of the bills will be supported on both side.
I hope I am proven wrong but in two years, I will be saying "told ya so" as i shake my head in shame. Winning elections in America is more about duping the public and rallying for the home team then it is the issues. Micheal Steele just conceded the Maryland senate race. Interestingly they aren't walking around demanding recount after recounts, disenfranchisement or claiming the elections were stolen. That seems to be a tactic that will gain more support in the next election cycle.
Re:Not a A Macacaphonic Chorus (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, you should, and we should have an electoral system where non-tactical voting doesn't have significant perverse practical consequences. But, until we do have such a system, you're going to have plenty of people pointing to the real consequences of naive voting. If you don't want to hear that, you ought to work toward fixing the electoral system so that what they are saying isn't true, rather than complaining that people point out the truth too much.
Because while most people believe in broad abstract outline what the libertarians claim to believe (low taxes, restrict government to essential functions), when the rubber meets the roads on real concrete policy choices, they tend to differ with libertarians and fall closer to some other party on which functions are essential, how taxes should be distributed, etc.
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Insightful)
Two questions.
1. Can you point me to that clause in the Conventions? I was not familiar with that. (As I understood it, signed international treaties are the law of the land.) I'm curious to see what you are referring to.
2. Assuming your 'uncomfortable truth' is correct, and a nation does not have to follow them in combat with an enemy who does not recognize the Conventions, do you think - personally - that we should still follow them on moral grounds?
Re:I, for one,... (Score:4, Insightful)
-repeal the Patriot Act
-put a stop to govt. spying on Americans
-restore habeus corpus
-repeal the tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy
-close Guantanamo
-stop "extraordinary rendition"
-end torture
-get the US out of Iraq
-fund alternative energy and public transportation so we can stop funding terrorism through oil
-implement national health care
-disband and dismantle the Dept. of Homeland Security, which is the creepiest title since 'Ministry of Truth.'
-crack down on corporate aka white-collar crime
-stop outsourcing our jobs
-restore environmental protections
-shut NK and Iran's nuclear programs down
-stop invading other countries at the orders of AIPAC (http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf
-seriously fund medical research to cure cancer and heart disease, etc.
-catch Osama bin Laden, for pete's sake
-repair our alliances
-start addressing the very scary and very imminent threat of China
Basically, I want them to undo everything Bush has done, and then take the country in a positive direction domestically and abroad.
But I will be seriously pissed if I don't see investigations and impeachment, because the neo-cons, the war profiteers like Bechtel and Halliburton, and all their co-conspirators must be brought to justice. 'Cause like it or not folks, if they don't then our last means to get justice is with our guns.
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am alive and posting to slashdot so I, personally, have not been murdered. Therefore, murderers do not exist.
Re:Not a suprise (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that the number of those is far, far fewer than you think. I would vote for school vouchers tomorrow, with just a couple of minor adjustments. For one, people state that public schools are more expensive than private. That is simply false. The cost to educate students in each is similar, with public education being less. Why public school seems to be more expensive is that it is not a school. It is transportation, day care, and prison. Children are required, by law, to attend school. public schools are required, by law, to admit pretty much anyone that wants in. Public schools provide transportation for those who need it. None of the private schools I ever went to (and I went to a mix of both) provided transportation or accepted everyone that applied. So, as long as private schools were required to bus in those that were more than 5 miles away and in the same district and were not allowed to refuse any student, then they should have vouchers. However, the people that really want to send their children to private schools will. So the vouchers will let those already in private shcools to get a tax break, and not allow the migration among schools that is claimed. It is essentailly more welfare for the rich. That's why I see it as a party issue. Anything that is welfare for the rich is supported by the Republicans (like private school vouchers and farm/oil subsidies) and opposed by the Democratic party. But the things that benefit the poor and not the rich, like welfare and health care, are supported by the Democratic party and opposed by the Republicans.
When you make school choice a choice of the students/parents (any school accepting voucheres must accept all applicants), then I would support vouchers. When school choice is the school cherry picking the students they want and refusing all others, vouchers will cause a collapse of the public school system and should be rejected. They will drain money and the good students out of the system, regardless of how good the public schools are, causing a downward spiral of funding. Some, like Bush, don't seem to mind if they cause the collapse of the school system. I prefer to have everyone provided with some basic education.
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've got a simpler solution: If the law is unconstitutional, don't pass the law. If the law gets passed despite the veto, don't execute the law. Then the Supreme Court is supposed to jump in and decide whether the law is constitutional or not.
Yes, I understand why you consider signing statements useful, and even reasonable when used in exceptional circumstances. But it seems like the Constitution doesn't authorize the practice, and letting it go on despite that effectively takes one of the powers of the Judiciary (to determine the constitutionality of laws) and hand it straight over to the Executive. Maybe the Constitution should be amended, to legalize the signing statements or give SCOTUS a way to quickly weigh in on such perceived constitutional turf wars.
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:3, Insightful)
A bloody battle in a war that marked a substantial and measurable objective being reached.
Iraq, on the other hand, stopped being a war years ago. It is now an occupation with a stated goal of restoring order, a goal which slips further and further from the hands of U.S. troops every day as more and more die in a non-war with no clear way of reaching any well-defined objectives.
Iraq is a blemish on the record of the United States that compounds our having made the same mistakes in the 1960s and 1970s in Southeast Asia (through military force), South America (through assassination and support of dictators) and elsewhere. We really do have to stop imagining ourselves as competent nation-builders. It's just not something we know how to do. I think once we manage to disabuse ourselves of that notion, we'll find our role on the international stage is much more fruitful and warmly accepted.
ANTI-WAR, ANTI-STATE, PRO-MARKET (Score:1, Insightful)
Nope libertarians, at least when I last looked at them, were isolationists.
Neither of these assessments are correct. Libertarians seek maximum freedom, both economically and socially.
This means specifically NOT subsidizing the military-industrial complex (aka "national defense"), and it means genuinely free trade (not the WTO/IMF/OECD/World Bank regulated variety) in a global market.
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying their intent is to do that but they will be just as content to do it. They either lied in getting elected by saying they could fdo something about it (knowing this isn't a presidential year) or they willing to now what worked before on 2008. If they cannot do anything about it, then they (some who promised to change it) lied in getting elected. If they can, they don't intend on doing it. Now, this is supported by Kerry's plan that was so much better but no mention outside the election campaign. If it was so good, then why is it still a secrete because he didn't get elected? Nothing was purposed to change the situation outside withdrawing troops or telling the enemy we will be gone by this date regardless. Both of those strategies leave us losing.
They made the Iraq debacle. They concentrated on all the negative and make it appear worse then it is. This was done to get elected and to demonize Bush which helps the previous. I'm not saying everything is peachy in Iraq, I am saying that it isn't as bad as it is being made out to be. Plenty of good is still going on over there but as the song says "peace sells but who's buying". As for being "sold a bill of goods"?I'm not sure i would give it that much credit. I know they don't plan on doing much of anything different. And what they do attempt will be more or less something supported on both sides. In other words, We won't see a change big enough to notice.
As for explaining why continued support for Iraq? Why would that be. I've already stated my belief that the dems won't do anything to help in Iraq. They have already stated they can't do much of anything. But what will happen is that the dems in power cannot continue to demonize it like they have. Why, because they will be to blame this time. Can you imagine a campaign of "we are in control, the country needs to go a new direction, elect us again".
Very few democrats are actually against Iraq. They are against this administration. I'm betting they aren't working against and position stronger or not. You will see them coming out and saying we don't want to lose in Iraq and change their opinions quite a bit from how they have previously stated them.