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)
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.
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:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Informative)
This is a president with absolutely no respect for anyone other than himself and what he thinks is right, either that or someone that has been totally manipulated by some unknown group or entity into a unilateral form of government.
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: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:5, Funny)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Funny)
How many times do I have to say this?
Ahem...
strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is NO basis for a system of government.
You cannot just call yourself Senator just because some watery tart tossed a sword at you.
I mean, if I went round, calling myself Congressman, just because some moistened bink lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Funny)
There's still a 30-year moratorium on Monty Python sketch recital. It's been observed to cause virginity.
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:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Funny)
Ahh.. and that would be what? Ruling by jackasses?
Methinks never has a
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: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).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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: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: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?
Hardly. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Informative)
You seem to be trying to be sarcastic, so I'm not sure you remember the Patriot Act was pushed through Congress in a matter of days. There are many statements from congressional staffers saying that basically nobody had time to even read the bill since it was so huge, but the Presdient wanted it passed, so everyone lined up and passed it. There was basically no discussion or debate whatsoever before the Patriot Act was passed, it was only after the fact that anyone could read the darn thing and see how much bad stuff had been put in by the Executive, some of which were allowed to expire when the act went up for renewal.
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Uhh... not in *my* Army (Score:4, Informative)
If I caught any of my guys violating the Convention, particularly the sections on the mistreating of prisoners, I'd nail their ass to the wall, and I expect my chain of command would support that.
The Convention isn't just a nice idea; it's the LAW.
DG
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
Wiggum said it best. (Score:5, Funny)
No, no, no, dig up stupid.
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:5, Insightful)
I am alive and posting to slashdot so I, personally, have not been murdered. Therefore, murderers do not exist.
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: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...
10 Step Process To Becoming a Congress Staffer (Score:5, Informative)
I've worked on a campaign for a state legislator - the people at the top (the consultants who end up on congressional staff, the directors, etc) are mostly just like me, but with two differences: they were a lot more involved in politics throughout college (running for Student Senate, joining groups, etc) and most of them were eager beaver, suit-wearing boring clods. (Not that I'm not boring or a clod, but they took the cake.)
The people who get on national campaigns are only slightly more respectable. Add in a law degree and you can be a lobbyist, too.
In fact, here's a simple 10 Step Process To Becoming a Congressional Staffer:
1) In high school, be "politically" active. Run for student government, be a joiner, do the club thing (be President of at least one), join FBLA. Also, learn Spanish. And actually learn it, don't just sit in the classes.
2) Become an Eagle Scout. It's ridiculously easy, and it's great for networking. For girls, do a lot of volunteer work.
3) In college, repeat: join a lot of clubs, run for student government.
4) Write for your college newspaper. Especially the political section. If the main newspaper won't take you, right for one of the student-run alternatives. Or start your own (even better!)
5) Get a degree in political science with a minor in communications. Any liberal arts degree will do, but political science is as an easy way to
6) Network within your university. Ask all of your teachers and advisors about internships and positions on campaigns and staff.
7) Get involved in real politics around your college. Volunteer for the Democratic or Republican party headquarters in your area. Attend townhall meetings and generally get your name out there (business cards are great.) At actual elections, sign up to be a poll worker (you get paid $150 in Texas to do this.)
8) Once you've graduated, head to your party headquarters with your hat in your hand, and ask for a job on a staff. They will hook you up (I worked on 3 campaigns before switching fields.)
9) Focus on what you're really good at within the campaign. Good at math? Crunch poll numbers and offer strategies on how to be more efficient with your campaigning. Good at IT? Build websites, manage e-mail newsletters, keep track of donors, create systems to manage the campaign. Good with people? Be the PR flak, or coordinate the volunteers. Good with words? Be a speechwriter. Find your strength and hone in on it.
10) Wait 10 years. By the time you're 30, you'll be in a Congressional office, as long as you don't totally screw up. And even then, all of that networking will probably get you something cushy.
This strategy absolutely worked for me up to stage 8, when I decided I'd rather build websites for regular people and businesses than campaigns.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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:4, Informative)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Informative)
He didn't invent this practice, so don't give him so much credit. Also, it is incredibly un-democratic for a single ruler to be able to manipulate the law to the extent that Bush has. Here are some sample statements he added from the Boston Globe. If these don't make your blood boil, you truely are a moron - or really believe that Bush is the incarnation of Jesus.
March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.
Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.
Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."
Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.
Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.
Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.
Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.
Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)
Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.
Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.
Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.
Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.
Bush's signing
Re:Will they be able to make things better? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're democrats, not magicians.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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: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.
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:Repugnacans Got Just Deserts - Demoncrats Didn' (Score:4, Informative)
How is this a conservative agenda? Every important item in your list is about telling others how to live! A true conservative agenda is that basically people should be as free as possible from government interference.
Government should be minimal. People should be free to pursue life, liberty and happiness - remember that line?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The more accurate satement would be if the Republicans will get voted out of the exective branch next term.
Fraud count (Score:4, Funny)
Unsuccessful votes: 2%
George Bush: 52%
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well last night, before I had seen any election news, I decided to go check out the results so far. I googled for "cnn election" and clicked "I'm Feeling Lucky". The headline on the page was "BUSH DEFEATS KERRY". I had to do a double take before I realized it was the 2004 results page. See what
Stock Market (Score:3)
Re:Stock Market (Score:5, Informative)
Tip #2: My belief is that the end-of-year-rally will continue, and October 2006 to October 2007 will be a good year in the market (with most of the gains early). If I recall correctly, it almost always is, in years of the mid-term elections.
Tip #3: One stock prediction you can rely on: "It will fluctuate."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stock Market (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Stock Market (Score:5, Informative)
1) Lag between policies and stock performance
2) Lack of adjustment for inflation
3) Small sample size
4) Lack of a mechanism (without which, correlation isn't causation)
5) Many non-repeatable events that affect performance (9/11, oil embargo, etc)
And so on. In particular, Clinton doesn't deserve credit for sitting on the run-up of the dot com bubble and happening to get out right before it crashed (the market was cresting and heading for descent right as he left). I don't blame him either, however, so this isn't a partisan thing.
In short, I wouldn't say there's sufficient evidence either way, but as a statistically-minded scientist, I have a serious hatred of studies like the one you cite claiming statistically-unsupported conclusions.
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.
You idiots! (Score:3, Funny)
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:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (Score:4, Informative)
Um... the three branches are the Executive (the president heads up this branch, and it includes the military, all of the various agencies headed up by his appointed cabinet memebers, etc), the Judicial (the courts, which are populated with career-long judges that are typically in office well past the duration of the administration that nominated them, which usually means a pretty mixed group, philosophically), and the Legislative (which happens to have the Congress and the Senate as its two main parts).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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
Re: (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 ov
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)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaker Pelosi (heh) has a 100 hour plan with a number of very good ideas, if you ask me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed.
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
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!
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, 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.
Divided government is good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Divided government is good (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Election Supervision? (Score:3, Funny)
Hello United States of America!
Maybe You should consider inviting the UN for supervising the next election like any other Banana Republic out there?
Oh sorry - You couldn't take a joke ;-)
Hey, Karl Rove (Score:4, Funny)
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
exactly like it should be! (Score:5, Insightful)
Election fraud, not voter fraud (Score:5, Informative)
Voter fraud is people voting under false identities. It rarely happens. Election fraud is the kind of mass voter suppression and dubious vote counting we've been seeing in this country. Even the most celebrated examples of "voter fraud" are really election fraud, such as Chicago Mayor Daley allegedly engineered dead people voting for JFK.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's one small problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
THEY'RE ALL POLITICIANS!!!
Voting issues (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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 t
Re:Not a suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Favorable outcome (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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)?
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: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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Get over yourself, and let the rest of us enjoy the "News"-part of the slogan, kthnxby
Re:What will the democrats be able to do? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What will the democrats be able to do? (Score:5, Funny)
They'll go along with a minimum wage increase, but the president will add a signing statement:
"Within the context of this statute, the term 'Dollar' shall defined to be equal to 68 cents."
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:Like Bush says about elections... (Score:5, Informative)
Pollsters had characterized this election as a irresistible force (the 'tsunami' of public opinion against the Bush and the Republicans) vs the immovable object (the incredibly rigged system of incumbent protecting districts plus the advantages of incumbency in getting re-elected in general). Apparently the immovable object wasn't quite as immovable as the Republicans had hoped.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I switched from Coke to Pepsi!! (Score:4, Insightful)