News   Nov 04, 2024
 256     3 
News   Nov 04, 2024
 377     0 
News   Nov 04, 2024
 448     0 

US Midterm Election

George Bush's speech writers wrote:

Amid this time of change, I have a message for those on the front lines: To our enemies, do not be joyful.

Well those who aren't entirely supportive of the *PTUI* Bush Admin have had 24 hours of joy.

Reality has set in.

George Bush is still President.

And ganjavih's "spineless Dems" now have two years to stay (major) scandal-free and grow a backbone. Possible???

One worrying observation from a pundit (forget which). Pointed out that that for the Dems to win, they must've gotten former-Republican voters over to them.

Two things happened as a result.

1. A "redder" Blue.

and:

2. An even more conservative bunch of Republicans than before.

On a political scale, is there anything between hardliners and extremists? Serious question.
 
Another caveat about the impeachment wishful-think: being impeached didn't lead Clinton to leave office...
 
There's probably not enough time to impeach Bush, practically speaking. The new Congress doesn't meet until the beginning of January, there would have to be investigations before articles of impeachment could be voted by the House, and then the Senate trial. It took 13 months from the time Drudge broke the Lewinsky story for Clinton's trial to finish. With (Glory Halleujah!!!) only two years left in Bush's term, it would be difficult to get him convicted before noon on January 20, 2009.

If they're smart, the Dems will investigate everything investigatable, make as many Republicans looks as bad as possible, thus improving their own chances in the 2008 elections.

The Democratic governor of Iowa announced the creation of his presidential exploratory committee today, thus beginning the 2008 presidential campaign.
 
aislin.1110.gif
 
The last paragraph is priceless.


Key Republican joins Dems opposing Bolton nomination
POSTED: 1944 GMT (0344 HKT), November 10, 2006

Adjust font size:


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- This is probably not what President Bush had in mind when he stressed bipartisanship after the Democratic Party's midterm elections sweep.

A key Senate Republican has joined Democrats in opposing one of Bush's initiatives for the lame-duck Congress: John Bolton's nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

With leaders from both parties promising a new bipartisan Washington, Bush began efforts to get two of his most controversial decisions approved before the Democrats take over. (Watch reason to hope for national unity -- 2:16 )

Along with Bolton's nomination, Bush said he would like to move forward on legislation to retroactively authorize the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program.

Bush said he would like to see action on both issues before year's end. The Democratic-controlled Congress begins its term in January.

But Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee, who was defeated in this week's election, said he would block Bolton's nomination.

Chafee, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters that he did not believe Bolton's nomination would move forward without his support.

"The American people have spoken out against the president's agenda on a number of fronts, and presumably one of those is on foreign policy," the Rhode Island moderate told The Associated Press.

"And at this late stage in my term, I'm not going to endorse something the American people have spoke out against."

The committee, dominated 10-8 by Republicans, requires a majority vote to send the nomination to the Senate floor. A tie would be the same as a no vote.

After failing to get a Senate vote for Bolton's nomination, Bush made the appointment in August 2005 during a Congressional recess. (Full story)

Bolton's appointment will expire in January unless the Senate confirms him, and the probable next chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee says approval is unlikely.

"I see no point in considering Mr. Bolton's nomination again in the Foreign Relations Committee because, regardless of what happens there, he is unlikely to be considered by the full Senate," said Democratic Sen. Joe Biden, who is set to become the committee's chairman and control the agenda in January.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said that Bolton has "earned the right to remain our U.N. ambassador."

"You know, in this country, I thought you were rewarded for success, and he's been highly successful," he said. "And again, if people take a look at the record, it's going to be awfully hard to poke holes in it."

Last year Democrats launched a heated debate about Bolton as they blocked a vote on his nomination.

They complained he gave the Senate false information when he failed to note on a questionnaire that he had been questioned by the department's inspector general as part of a joint inquiry by the State Department and CIA into allegations that Iraq attempted to obtain uranium from Niger in Africa.

The State Department acknowledged the error in Bolton's statement.

Also, Sen. George Voinovich, an Ohio Republican, took to the floor and read a list of complaints by Bolton's subordinates who said he had a reputation of bullying his colleagues, taking facts out of context and exaggerating intelligence.

Carl Ford, the former chief of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, called Bolton "a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy" and a "serial abuser" of subordinates.

Bush to meet with Reid, Durbin

The president Thursday also outlined some other issues he'd like to see Congress address before year's end, and had lunch with the likely new speaker of the House of Representatives, California Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi. (Transcript)

Among those issues are the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, bipartisan energy legislation, trade legislation, a federal spending bill and an agreement with India on civilian nuclear technology.

The Terrorist Surveillance Act is likely to face stiff opposition in the Senate and House, and has drawn objections from members of both parties.

In August, a federal judge in Michigan declared the program unconstitutional. That ruling was appealed, but Justice Department officials do not expect a ruling until next year.

The legislation would authorize the NSA to eavesdrop on phone calls between people in the United States and suspected terrorists overseas without a court order.

Aides to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales indicated he is likely to be making public appearances to push for passage in coming days.

Before his lunch date with Pelosi, Bush lined up his Cabinet for a photo opportunity and spoke to reporters about a meeting he has scheduled Friday with two Democrats who will lead the Senate come January -- Sens. Harry Reid of Nevada and Richard Durbin of Illinois. (Watch Bush's plans for Congress before GOP cedes control -- 3:10 )

"We'll discuss the way forward for our country, and I'm going to tell them what I just told our Cabinet. It is our responsibility to put the elections behind us and work together on the great issues facing America," Bush said.

"The American people expect us to rise above partisan differences, and my administration will do its part."

At a news conference celebrating his party's return to control in the Senate, Durbin on Thursday vowed: "We can come together on a bipartisan basis to solve the real problems facing our country."

But he also dismissed the president's plans for the lame-duck Congress, the AP reported.

"For a Republican Congress to have gone forward for two years and produced so little, and then for the president to come up with a huge agenda for the next two weeks, you have to ask him, 'Why didn't you use some of the time you spent arguing on some less important issues before?'" Durbin said.
 
Also, Ken Mehlman (RNC Chair) is gay, apparently? Or so said Bill Maher...on Larry King.
 
From Kunstler.com:

If an American political party was ever in for an ass-kicking, it's the current incarnation of the Republicans. Everyone has finally turned on them, even their neo-con war strategists -- Richard Perle and Company -- who told a Vanity Fair reporter last week that George Bush didn't know how to run a war that seemed like a good idea before they handed it over to him.
Meanwhile, just days before the election, televangelist Republican cheerleader Ted Haggard gets nailed for consorting with a male prostitute while on crystal meth -- taking up the baton in the GOP relay-race of grifters and pervert-hypocrits, Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Mark Foley, David Safavian, et al -- and the mid-term vote begins to look a little gnarly for the family values crowd.
Let's say the Democrats win control of at least one house of congress and possibly two. Are they going to shut down the project in Iraq? I doubt it. Badly as it has worked out, the alternative of withdrawing the US military presence there may be worse. Anyway, we'd still be sticking around the Middle East -- in Qatar and Kuwait and a few other places -- and we'd have to stand on the sidelines and watch Iran gobble up the substantial oil resources around the Tigris / Euphrates delta region. What would be the remedy for that? Invade Iraq all over again?
I confess, what bugs me about my Democrats is that they seem to think we can just duck out of the contest for Middle East oil and keep enjoying the happy motoring fiesta -- which, by the way, is not just the way we live in this country but also the basis of our economy, when you sweep aside all the bullshit. Contrary to what a lot of utopian Democrats wish, it will never be prime-time for ethanol, bio-diesel, hydrogen, or twenty other nominees as replacements for gasoline -- at least not the way we run things now. Driving a Prius might induce raptures of eco-moral superiority, but changing the zoning laws would produce a better outcome -- and that's just too hard.
It would be nice if the Democrats put forward some concrete policy ideas for moving this society away from extreme car dependence and continued suburban sprawl-building -- for instance, a federal project to repair the passenger rail system that was once the envy of the world and is now so ****ed up that the Bolivians would be ashamed of it -- but the Democrats have been too brain-dead, too chicken, and too distracted by sex-and-race politics to actually lead the American public. The only change they have really beat the drum for is gay marriage, which more than a few people of sound mind regard as something that will not necessarily make the USA a better place.
The big fear about a Democratic-controlled congress is that, in the absence of any good ideas for transitioning the nation for a post-oil existence, they will put all their new power behind a grand inquisition against their defeated rivals. Ever since the Watergate hearings, we've gotten into the habit of thinking that all tragic political events can be corrected or compensated for by holding investigations. This is based on the seemingly logical idea that if we could only find out what went wrong with some affair -- Iran-contra, Nine-Eleven, WMDs in Iraq -- then we wouldn't repeat the mistake. But history doesn't really repeat (though it sometimes rhymes, thank you Mark Twain). And so our investigation mania had become as self-defeating and addictive as our behavior around automobiles.
Reality never did get much traction among the candidates in this election season. Neither party truly recognizes the implications of our energy predicament, or wants to talk about it. It will take a shock to the system, and there are several in the offing. The complex arrangements we depend on these days will eventually respond to reality even if we don't. I nominate the financial system as the one most likely to seize up first, since it is burdened with extraordinary perversities producing unprecedented distortions in the basic matter of what constitutes value. The oil markets have enjoyed a season of supernatural stability, but the home furnaces are now running and the inventory sedulously built up before election day is starting to draw down again. There are still nearly two months of 2006 left and a lot can still happen.
The fate of George W. Bush in the twilight of his tenure might invoke spasms of nausea in the casual observer. His own party will use him as a dumpster for their recriminations and regrets. He's sure to face some additional horrific crises in the more than two years left. The economic wreckage that he's leaving behind will become manifest to everybody as a maelstrom of bad credit sucks houses and family futures into an abyss of insolvency. His previously loyal minions will begin to inform the magazine reporters -- a la Richard Perle and David Frum -- of all his odd little personality deficiencies, like an inability to pay attention. If he's lucky, he'll get a blow-job in the vicinity of the oval office and nobody will ever hear about it.
But remember this: history is not going to stop because Nancy Pelosi is having a bad hair day.
 
^^^ hummm.. letters soup. 8o

That's completely unreadable. Please separate the paragraphs.
 
One thing I think hardly anyone's dwelt upon is that the earliest and most decisive House of Reps electoral casualty was Indiana's John Hostettler, of "South Toronto" fame...
 
It took me a moment of research to realize what you were saying, and now I finally remember the ordeal.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joh..._in_Canada

He was the notorious member who made the South Toronto comment, and I'm glad to see he got ousted from office.

We've had that kind of insane ignorance in our Congress for far too long.

I quote from Wikipedia: "On November 7, 2006, Ellsworth defeated Hostettler by a margin of 61 percent to 39 percent. Even though Hostettler had never been able to establish a secure footing in the 8th, the 22-point margin of defeat was shocking on several counts. For example, Hostettler was a 12-year incumbent, and the 8th had gone strongly for George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election."

Furthermore, I don't fully trust the new Democratic Congress. And I'm a DNC card carrying member. If you look at a lot of the new wins, we won seats due to a number of very conservative leaning Democrats. That doesn't mean Democrats, even with a majority, have a clear pathway to a lot of positive change on both domestic and foreign policy.
 
^We've already seen a dramatic change in foreign policy, and the Democratic majority hasn't even taken its seats in Congress yet. Some of the new Democrats are typed as "conservative", but I think it means that they are conservative on just one or two issues, like fiscal policy and gun control. On the major issue of Iraq, no Democrat, except for perhaps Joe Lieberman, argues for the "stay the course" policy of Geoge W. Bush or the "we need MORE troops" policy of John McCain.
 

Back
Top