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.
I, for one,... (Score:4, Interesting)
Now that the Dems control the House, and will have a solid say in what happens in the Senate (regardless of outcome in Montana and Virginia), I want to see some action on real issues.
(BTW - can you really call Liberman a Democrat now? I mean he votes with the Republicans and the national Democrats gave him the finger earlier this year. I wonder if he will consider switching parties? That woul d be the ultimate up-yours, especially if the Dems get both tight races left - as his switch would put it at 50-50, and "the duck" would then cast all tie-breaking votes)
What will the democrats be able to do? (Score:2, Interesting)
I switched from Coke to Pepsi!! (Score:2, Interesting)
Dear Blogosphere: (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, the way the senate results are coming down, guess what: you just made Independent Joe Lieberman the most powerful man in the Senate.
How do you like them apples?
With love,
-- Irony
Re:I, for one,... (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaker Pelosi (heh) has a 100 hour plan with a number of very good ideas, if you ask me.
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:2, Interesting)
One of the "bigger picture" questions I'm wondering about is when we inevitably vote Bush out of office in 2 years (assuming he'll actually LEAVE and assuming we don't impeach his ass first), is will whoever is in next actually get rid of the powers Bush has consolidated for them? Are we stuck with this crap forever? Politicians, whether right or left do not like to give up power of any sort.
Voting issues (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (Score:3, Interesting)
It's time to call that bitch Bush down to the mat to answer for what he's done to our country over the last six years.
-Eric
Re:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (Score:3, Interesting)
It's good for another reason. Political parties sometimes need a straw-man to put blame on as an excuse to not cater to their most extreme constituents. So they get the benefit of support from that member of the constituency, without having to actually do what they would like. Think about how much the Republican base has been complaining that Bush hasn't delivered on promises. In fact, the only group who has gotten what they wanted was the amoral rich -- billions of dollars of tax cuts for the wealthiest people (including somehow cutting the estate tax!) while racking up the biggest deficit and national debt in history. The Christian fundamentalists keep complaining that Bush didn't turn the U.S. into a theocracy, and the Neocons didn't get to turn Iraq into a virtual colony. It's like, "Oh, I'd *love* to support your tax cut for the rich/outlaw science/create colonies around the world, but I can't -- those darn Democrats are stopping me." It's the equivalent of starting a fight in bar, desperately hoping your friend will get in between to stop it.
The big difference is with the Democrats, the most extreme constituents have little or no power (I'm looking at you, Dennis Kucinich and your "Department of Peace" weirdness). With the Republicans, the most extreme members have been running the party the past 12 years. Now with some checks and balances back in place, we can actually get some good work done for the country.
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:2, Interesting)
But if the dog is all bark and has no teeth, everything gained will be lost.
Still, this morning I took on a new optimism; the answer in Iraq is to send more troops. An overwhelming amount. And stop restricting what our troops can do. If terrorists are shielding themselves in Mosques, we blow it up first and can rebuild it later - it'll be cheaper in American and Iraqi lives and financially in the long run.
This is how war really is. People die. The ruthless are the ones who win. The way to succeed in anything is to be goal oriented; I guess I haven't really seen either side offer up a goal. It's like writing a program - you have the big picture, then you architect all the building blocks you'll need to accomplish the task. Then, if any one of those building blocks is too complex, you architect a solution to that.
If anyone's done this with Iraq, I haven't heard about it.... all we have is the big picture; a free, safe, secure and democratic Iraq. Nobody is talking about what it will take to get us there. I see this same problem in Israel; they restrain themselves to appease the world community and end up in a decades long conflict with no end in sight.
That's obviously not going to happen in Iraq; we'll pull out before it gets to that point. But then, as everyone has been saying, that will make things worse. We're really shooting ourselves in the foot with this thing. It doesn't matter at this point whether you agreed with the war initially or not - we're there and the Iraqi civillians are our responsbility for now.
Re:Not a suprise (Score:2, Interesting)
Given the monumental waste of money and innocent lives in Iraq, fleecing of the treasury for corporate crony interests, routine battering of the constitution, and the staggering deficit just for starters, I find it hard to agree that the republicans want whats best for the greater good.
I don't play partisan politics and won't say that democrats are the knights in shining armor either, but the recent history of republican hegemony speaks volumes.
Oversight shouldn't be political (Score:5, Interesting)
This is because Republicans have always viewed Congressional hearings as merely a club to attack the other party with when they are truly essential to a well running government. A lot of our problems would have been avoided if they had kept fulfilling that role, but they are phobic about saying anything bad about other Republicans. Let's just hope that there are enough old hands in Congress that can remember how this is supposed to work!
Means nothing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this mean House Democrats will actually vote Democrat? After they've been voting Republican for the past 6 years?
Let's not forget that the Democrats voted for the PATRIOT act, too. Everytime you hear of Bush & Co. invading our personal liberties, remember that it was both the Democrats and the Republicans who passed the legislation allowing him to do so. The Republicans voted their conscience, however poorly formed it might be, while the Democrats simply betrayed both their principles and their constituents.
The primary difference between a Republican and a Democrat is that a Republican votes according to the principles which got him elected, where a Democrat doesn't care how he votes, as long as he can blame the Republicans should something go wrong.
This really means nothing. The Republicans are still running both the House and the Senate; they can always count on their "Democrat friends" to vote Republican.
American citizens not so disconnected afterall (Score:2, Interesting)
As I have over the years watched the political discourse across the net, one truism seemed to stand out. People across the globe seemed to distrust the American government, but appreciate the American people in general. As recently as 2004 this appreciation of the American people began to change.
I do not feel like going into a great defense of this position, but I think most readers hear could understand and most likely echo that sentiment.
Let me be clear, I do not think that the American people allowed global opinion to "greatly" sway their decision making when it came to voting this cycle, but I do think it played a role. This must provide at least some level of comfort to those around the world who had become disenchanted with America AND its people.
IMO, the world (America included) needed this outcome to begin to heal some of the divisiveness that has cropped up over the last few years.
Re:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (Score:3, Interesting)
I still call myself a Republican because I am. It's Bush's "New Aged GOP" that should stop calling themselves Republicans because they aren't.
Re:I, for one,... (Score:4, Interesting)
will not be pleased if the only thing to come out of the House in the next two years is a bunch of investigations and impeachment hearings.
...
Now that the Dems control the House, and will have a solid say in what happens in the Senate (regardless of outcome in Montana and Virginia), I want to see some action on real issues.
Well, in some cases action on real issues is about investigation. I (for one) am concerned about:
Re:I pity the Democrats (Score:3, Interesting)
I say this for two reasons - first, things aren't likely to really improve in the next two years, especially Iraq - and now that the Democrats share power, they'll be sharing plenty of blame too. Unfortunately the people did not wake up in 2004 when all the signs of Iraq being bungled were there. Probably the country could have avoided much of what's happened, and perhaps the Democrats might have even received some electoral credit in 2006 and 2008 for that. Now, Bush will continue with his chosen path, without the Democrats being able to do much to stop him - only now they'll get much of the blame during the 2008 elections.
We can look forward to two years of Bush and his ilk blaming Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats for EVERYTHING that goes wrong.
But, second and more importantly, when it comes to domestic issues, to social issues, more of the country seems to be in line with the conservatives and the Republicans (and more of the country seems to be in line with them on foreign policy issues too, except in the case of Iraq), and that's not likely to change in two years. The Democrats simply cannot win in a lot of the more conservative areas of the country without some seriously divisive issue for them to hang their hats on. This time, Bush came along and provided that issue. If Bush hadn't bungled Iraq, the Democrats would have had no prayer in this election. In fact I think it likely that they would have lost seats and been even further marginalized.
I for one am not looking forward to 2008 - especially if we're still in Iraq and (heaven help us) someone like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc. gets elected.
why doesn't it divide into 2 camps? (Score:5, Interesting)
As an American, I can say that you're pretty much accurate there. The voting system has led to a two-party system, which has led to bitter, bitter partisanship like you describe - despite the fact that the Duopoly is essentially a single monster with two heads. Now that the election is over, it will return to being the back-patting good ol' boy club.
The OP is right - divided government is good. So then why can't we get some stronger third parties? I, for one, would love to see no single party with a majority in either house. A coalition government seems like it would be much slower to pass new laws as well, which is a good thing for freedom. Nobody in this country looks beyond the "us vs them" of election day to the deeper (though mundane) issues of voting methods that could actually fix the problem we all complain about. All my fellow Americans know how to do is swing the pendulum back and forth. The system itself doesn't allow (much less encourage) real challenge to occur. Voting doesn't make much difference, because there are no choices, so the USA has one of the lowest rates of involvement of any free country.
My analysis is that voters wanted a change. They rejected the leadership of GWB and took it out on Congress, but it isn't necessarily an endorsement of Democrats. I think there are a lot of disillusioned Republicans out there, that would have taken the opportunity to vote Constitution [constitutionparty.org] or Libertarian [lp.org] if the media had bothered to inform them of these alternatives. But the media seems to be in collusion with the Duopoly, because those bitter two-way feuds make good news.
Mixed thoughts (Score:1, Interesting)
One of my favorite Congressman is Rep. Ron Paul. We need ore poeple like him.
Since the Democrats now control Congress, we need to see about getting rid of the Real ID Act - get it repealed. Passed without discussion, without debate.
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just my $0.02
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:10 Step Process To Becoming a Congress Staffer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not a A Macacaphonic Chorus (Score:4, Interesting)
Speaking of, why does the Green Party get so much support as opposed to the Libertarians (which from what I can tell, seem much more "mainstream" in that if you asked someone their thoughts, would probably fall in line with them)?
Pretty much. (Score:2, Interesting)
Indeed; or, as my father used to say: "America, the world's fastest-growing third-world country."
I guess we haven't really hit rock-bottom yet though, since it still seems like a whole lot of people from actual third-world countries want to come here. When I start seeing Californians swimming south across the Rio Grande, then I'll know we've arrived.
Re:Not a A Macacaphonic Chorus (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Pretty much. (Score:3, Interesting)
That sounds pretty good to someone who can't pay their bills, can't afford healthcare, and gets treated like shit.
Re:Dear Blogosphere: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:4, Interesting)
If 1 in 100 knows about them, then 1 in 1,000 have a reasonable understanding of them.
Group opposes loss of signing statements [boston.com]
Group opposes loss of signing statements [boston.com]
Signing Off [nationalreview.com]
Could Supreme Court Settle Presidential Signing Scrap? [law.com]
I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that some people get this wrong given the shocking number of people buying into 9/11 myths or hoaxes [popularmechanics.com].
Re:Why is it a shame? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, first, because we already have mere plurality winners elected, both to the Presidency (Clinton '92 and, I believe, '96, plus certainly Bush '00, just for the most recent ones) and lesser offices, so that's not a new feature. OTOH, a electoral system which favored multiple parties rather than allowing them to be relevant as occasional quirks in the system would, necessarily, involve something beyond first place votes, likely a preference voting system, which would make it much more likely that a candidate would have a clear majority preference over each competing candidate (even if they did not secure a majority of the vote), and where they didn't, something establishing a priority beyond a mere plurality of the first place preferences. So this would be an improvement.
Also, its quite likely that such a system which didn't punish honest voting when preferences don't align with the major party would mean more people actually participating, which also makes the system more representative.
Also, it would make ballot results more credible as honest results, rather than endlessly debated as wins as the result of "spoilers" and "tactical voting", as spoiler effects would be minimized and most of the incentive for tactical voting removed.
Well, no, you could have a preference voting system using IRV or any number of other single-winner preference systems nationally, or you could construct a system to direct electoral votes to be cast as preference votes based on preference voting in the population, or lots of other ways.
You've missed lots of options, including those that most directly address the problem identified.
But that happens regularly now, with the combination of low turnout and bare majority or plurality winners. That are system achieves that result by discouraging voters and suppressing turnouts doesn't make it better than one that has the same number of people voting for the winner with more eligible people voting.
Re:Not a A Macacaphonic Chorus (Score:4, Interesting)
Eliminating taxes is a bit different than tax dodging... I think tax dodging is more a description of the goals of the Democrats and Republicans who want to give tax loopholes out to their corporate and special interest supporters like candy for votes. Libertarians just want to set a fair (lower) rate and have everyone pay their fair share. It hurts libertarians that they don't want to use the social and economic controls that have served the two parties so well to curry favor. In other words you can't give out tax breaks if the rate is already the lowest it can be in order to run a stripped down version of government.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you explain how VA benefits to provide health care to veteran's injured in Iraq is not a military expense? If you use the figures from the offical U.S. Budget [whitehouse.gov], you get 20%. However, the war on Iraq is not included in the budget and is funded through a special package. The funding has to be borrowed, and just like when I borrow money from the bank to buy something I cannot offered (like a house) I have to include the interest costs of borrowing this money in my accounting of its costs. Federal deficit costs that came from the wide variety of military actions we have been involved in since WWII, from Korea to Iraq to Nicaraqua (the first "War on Terror") to the funding we gave Hussien before he stopped following our orders. All of this costs money and should appropriately be assigned to military spending.
The flaw in your old saw is that you make the error of assuming the budget actually covers everything and that it properly categories expenses. All you have to do is think about how much is being spent in Iraq to get a sense that there is a serious flaw in your argument. Add in the money being spent on "Homeland Defense", Veterans Affairs, NASA, Department of Energy, that are primarily related to the military, and you have a lot more than 20%. Can you point out why you take the official numbers and cannot bring yourself to admit that there might be some bogus accounting going on here?
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, if dems do take the senate, they will only have a majority of one. The democratic party doesn't have discipline necessary to get them to vote along party lines. You only then need 1 or 2 people willing to cross the line to stymie a bill. Keep in mind that Lieberman ran as an independent and is a big supporter of the president. Bye-bye majority -- and Cheney casts the tie-breaking vote.