NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/va.senate/index.html

49 Republicans, 49 Democrats and 2 democrat-caucusing Independents. Democrats have the majority in the Senate. *nod*

It's a pity that there has to be a majority at all. :(

You like fights and arguements, don't you? :p

Its official! Its motherfucking V-DAY, Nov 9th 2006, the occupation is over, HALLALUJAH!

Free at last! Free at last! Thank god almighty, we are free at last!

Noticed that a few minutes ago on MSNBC. I think a Democratic majority in both houses will teach the Republicans some humility. Or maybe not ... :rolleyes:

Well, what I'm sure will be come to be called, The Bloodless Revolution of 2006 is over.

Noticed that a few minutes ago on MSNBC. I think a Democratic majority in both houses will teach the Republicans some humility. Or maybe not ... :rolleyes:

No, that's what the upcoming investigations are for.

V-Day 11 - 6 - 2006

The occupation is over, so to speak.

Free at last, free at last, thank god almighty, we are free at last!

You forgot the plans to remove all white men from any executive office, and replace them with black females.

Or the plans to force every church to maintain a gay minister for every heterosexual minister in the interests of tolerance.

Wait, you mean we're still going to allow heterosexual ministers? I thought the plan was to have only gay ministers until we finished outlawing all religions.

You like fights and arguements, don't you? :p

I like mud and tacos. But not at the same time. :)

V-Day 11 - 6 - 2006

The occupation is over, so to speak.

Free at last, free at last, thank god almighty, we are free at last!

For 2 years at least :p

Well, what I'm sure will be come to be called, The Bloodless Revolution of 2006 is over.

So we've probably got until 2018 until the next one...well, time to get to work. There's plenty to be done, and now they have a chance to prove themselves as a party ready to run the legislative branch.

However, I don't think it will really change much. I'll give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt, but I think it's pretty unlikely that they will be better than the Republicans especially once their power starts to get to their heads.

Wait, you mean we're still going to allow heterosexual ministers? I thought the plan was to have only gay ministers until we finished outlawing all religions.

Actually we should first require all ministers to be bisexual, and then we transition to all homosexuals.

Well maybe the repubs will learn they have to chat with the middle and poor classes.

The gal in Missouri commented that she would go into the rural areas and hear about people being told the economy is great and their response was "What?"

Did the demos win or the did the repubs take things for granted?

Divided government! Yippee!

But aren’t both parties the same?

Well maybe the repubs will learn they have to chat with the middle and poor classes.

The gal in Missouri commented that she would go into the rural areas and hear about people being told the economy is great and their response was "What?"

Did the demos win or the did the repubs take things for granted?

It would be nice if the Republicans chatted with the middle class and the poor but I fear that in the last 12 years they've shown contempt and dismissal for them. They only value the middle class as much as they can frighten them with gay marriage and activist judges and Islamofascists coming to your hometown.

Voting Republican is like voting to make the CEO of your company richer.

Did the demos win or the did the repubs take things for granted?

I personally think the latter. Voters were sick of the Republicans, and they voted in Democratic challengers to replace them; it was pretty clear that people were moving away from the Republicans, and they continued to do so despite the extensive political campaigning undertaken throughout 2006.

Wait, you mean we're still going to allow heterosexual ministers? I thought the plan was to have only gay ministers until we finished outlawing all religions.

no no no. You got it all wrong.

Outlawing all religions is SOOOO 2000. The democratic platform evolvs man, we change with the times.

Queen Pelosi will be installing Islam as the official religion, right after she orders the military to stand down and surrenders to Osama. Afterwards, he will be crowned supreme cleric, and the white house will be declared the center of western Islam, much like the vatican for catholicism.

For 2 years at least :p

The sort of crooked shenanigans that have defined the bush administration are what lost them the election.

They need to re-think, and re-think hard, their old strategy has been rejected.

Whatever a future republican administration brings, it will probably not be a repeat of this one.

I personally think the latter. Voters were sick of the Republicans, and they voted in Democratic challengers to replace them; it was pretty clear that people were moving away from the Republicans, and they continued to do so despite the extensive political campaigning undertaken throughout 2006.

And people moved specifically away from the current administration. Even the Republican candidate to replace Jeb Bush as governor of Florida ditched the President when George W came through campaigning. If that's not a message, I don't know what is.

It would be nice if the Republicans chatted with the middle class and the poor but I fear that in the last 12 years they've shown contempt and dismissal for them. They only value the middle class as much as they can frighten them with gay marriage and activist judges and Islamofascists coming to your hometown

The middle class voted them in, and they got what they voted for...

The middle class voted them in, and they got what they voted for...

There is that. :p

The sort of crooked shenanigans that have defined the bush administration are what lost them the election.

They need to re-think, and re-think hard, their old strategy has been rejected.

Whatever a future republican administration brings, it will probably not be a repeat of this one.

You know it's funny. Back in 2000 when George Bush got elected, I said to my other leftist friends "well, while I would prefer Gore, Bush being elected will do good things to the democrats".

When they all looked at me with blank stares wondering what the hell I was talking about i said it simply, that this administration would lead to so many blunders, and so violently anger the american people that it will do more for the democrat party platform then anything the democrats could do for themselves.

I was HOPING this would manifest by 2004...but better late than never. And it's good to be justified. The fact is that not only is it the direct result of this specific administration that put the democrats into the majority but it will have PROFOUND impact on future REPUBLICAN leaders as well, and the message has come across loud and clear. You're not king, you do not have unchecked authority, and if you try to act like you do, we will throw you out.

I really hope that the Democrats and Republicans can find that middle road.

To be Honest, I feel that the Democrats can be pretty liberal and the Republicans can be pretty conservative. Both makes me nervous. However, the middle roads I believe is the right direction for America. I would feel much better and secure if that middle roads can be found.

And people moved specifically away from the current administration. Even the Republican candidate to replace Jeb Bush as governor of Florida ditched the President when George W came through campaigning. If that's not a message, I don't know what is.

Bush is a liability; I can't think of a single Republican in Ohio who used the President in their ads or campaigns. They emphasized themselves as "Independent" rather than Republican in most case

Personally, I think it was dissatisfaction with Bush that cost them the election, since there is pretty much a direct correlation between Congressional approval ratings and Presidential approval ratings.

There is that. :p

Yep, unfortunately people seem to forget that the best Congress is one that can't do anything, and if they do manage to complete some legislation, it is watered down and bipartisan enough to avoid any real damage and possibly cause some good.

Bush is a liability; I can't think of a single Republican in Ohio who used the President in their ads or campaigns. They emphasized themselves as "Independent" rather than Republican in most case

Personally, I think it was dissatisfaction with Bush that cost them the election, since there is pretty much a direct correlation between Congressional approval ratings and Presidential approval ratings.

I think I seen this coming. Let's put the blame on Bush. Give me a break. People need to take responsibility. The Republicans have taken this loss very well.

I don't feel that it's fair to blame this on Bush. Everything else is Bush's fault, right.

I really hope that the Democrats and Republicans can find that middle road.

To be Honest, I feel that the Democrats can be pretty liberal and the Republicans can be pretty conservative. Both makes me nervous. However, the middle roads I believe is the right direction for America. I would feel much better and secure if that middle roads can be found.

People talk about 'middle roads' and 'liberal' democrats. What they don't seem to realise is that BOTH the US parties are pretty rightwing, by the measure of the rest of the world. (By which, of course, I mean Europe).

It's kind of like asking if Hitler and Mussolini could bridge their differences, and find a 'middle road'...

I think I seen this coming. Let's put the blame on Bush. Give me a break. People need to take responsibility. The Republicans have taken this loss very well.

I don't feel that it's fair to blame this on Bush. Everything else is Bush's fault, right.

No, you haven't been paying attention. Everything is Bill Clinton's fault. The Republicans have been saying that since 1994.

I think I seen this coming. Let's put the blame on Bush. Give me a break. People need to take responsibility. The Republicans have taken this loss very well.

I really think it has a lot to do with his unpopularity. Otherwise, Republicans wouldn't be running ads trying to distance themselves from him as much as possible even though they were all over him back in 2002 and 2004 when he was a lot more popular.

I don't feel that it's fair to blame this on Bush. Everything else is Bush's fault, right.

Well, yeah. Bush is pretty much an omnipotent God of evildoing. ;)

People talk about 'middle roads' and 'liberal' democrats. What they don't seem to realise is that BOTH the US parties are pretty rightwing, by the measure of the rest of the world. (By which, of course, I mean Europe).

But they're quite liberal compared to China or Russia, whose populations vastly exceed that of Europe...

I really think it has a lot to do with his unpopularity. Otherwise, Republicans wouldn't be running ads trying to distance themselves from him as much as possible even though they were all over him back in 2002 and 2004 when he was a lot more popular.



Well, yeah. Bush is pretty much an omnipotent God of evildoing. ;)

Like Vetalia said about Ohio, in Colorado I can't remember seeing any Republicans using the President in their ads, either. The Democrats' ads, now, that was a different story.

I was HOPING this would manifest by 2004...but better late than never. And it's good to be justified. The fact is that not only is it the direct result of this specific administration that put the democrats into the majority but it will have PROFOUND impact on future REPUBLICAN leaders as well, and the message has come across loud and clear. You're not king, you do not have unchecked authority, and if you try to act like you do, we will throw you out.

It did manifest by 2004, the Dems just didn't capitalize on it like they should've. Many people didn't feel comfortable voting for Bush and maybe even some of their Republican Congressmen, but the Dems didn't put up candidates that appealed to them either, so they just went with the norm.

This time around, either those people were even more fed up, or the Dems did a better job of putting viable candidates up. Maybe both.

Like Vetalia said about Ohio, in Colorado I can't remember seeing any Republicans using the President in their ads, either. The Democrats' ads, now, that was a different story.

Hell, the Democrats here were pretty much blaming Bush for everything regardless of factual legitimacy. They even brought in the "page scandal", which I considered completely unfair and irresponsible and so turned me against the Democrats in my district because it went well beyond fair criticism.

Personally, I think their ads locally went over the top and the local candidate was not offering any good ideas, so I ended up voting for the Republican incumbent in my district. They literally repulsed me with their attacks; there's only so much I tolerate before I have to draw the line...it was the same way in the 90's with Clinton/Gore, though, so I know the Republicans are just as bad.

People talk about 'middle roads' and 'liberal' democrats. What they don't seem to realise is that BOTH the US parties are pretty rightwing, by the measure of the rest of the world. (By which, of course, I mean Europe).

It's kind of like asking if Hitler and Mussolini could bridge their differences, and find a 'middle road'...

The problem with this sort of wrong analysis is that it refuses to take into account the fact that politics is local.

US politicians are not measured by voters against french, dutch, norwegian or chinese politicians - they are measured agaisnt their opponents.

There is not a "broad international spectrum" at work in the US, there is a very limited spectrum. American politics can only be sensibly discussed within the bounds of this sepctrum.

American leftists and american right-wingers are not the same as world-average leftists, european leftits, &c &c. As 'left' as you're going to get in the US' two-party government is the Democrats, and their one friend from Vermont. For all intents and purposes, these are the proper terms for the discussion.

It did manifest by 2004, the Dems just didn't capitalize on it like they should've. Many people didn't feel comfortable voting for Bush and maybe even some of their Republican Congressmen, but the Dems didn't put up candidates that appealed to them either, so they just went with the norm.

Kerry was a very weak candidate, and that cost the Democrats. They simply didn't have the plans or the candidates to win in 2004; personally, I think they preferred to shift their resources towards the big race in 2006 and the 2008 presidential election because they figured Bush and Congress' approval ratings would slide after the election and it would give them two years to draft a solid campaign platform.

They parried in 2004 to attack in 2006.

This time around, either those people were even more fed up, or the Dems did a better job of putting viable candidates up. Maybe both.

I'd say both.

Speaking in regard to Ohio, even though I strongly disagreed with him, Sherrod Brown did offer a competitive package of ideas that ultimately helped him win over Mike DeWine and are actual, well-planned ideas rather than just the opposite side of the debate. The same is true of Ted Strickland, whose ideas were very good and ultimately led me to back him and also contributed to his trouncing of Ken Blackwell in the gubernatorial election.

Kerry was a very weak candidate, and that cost the Democrats. They simply didn't have the plans or the candidates to win in 2004; personally, I think they preferred to shift their resources towards the big race in 2006 and the 2008 presidential election because they figured Bush and Congress' approval ratings would slide after the election and it would give them two years to draft a solid campaign platform.

They parried in 2004 to attack in 2006.

I'd say both.

Speaking in regard to Ohio, even though I strongly disagreed with him, Sherrod Brown did offer a competitive package of ideas that ultimately helped him win over Mike DeWine and are actual, well-planned ideas rather than just the opposite side of the debate. The same is true of Ted Strickland, whose ideas were very good and ultimately led me to back him and also contributed to his trouncing of Ken Blackwell in the gubernatorial election.

And Kerry did come close to beating Bush in 2004, despite the generally spineless campaign he waged. Perhaps you're right, maybe the DNC did decide to take a longer view.

I just hope that we get a decent candidate in 2008, a nice, middle of the road governor. No more Senators, the last Senator elected President was John Kennedy in 1960.

Divided government! Yippee!

Yeah, and undivided government had been working so well. :p

Major changes to government can be accomplished with rather minor changes to law. A few things I would very much like to see:

- Changes to lobbying rules that will create greater accountability for the "social interactions" (read: non-cash donations, i.e. golf junkets) between lobbyists and elected officials, and much stiffer punishments for violations.

- Adjustments to the legal immunity of elected officials to remind them that they are not above the law, even though they make it.

- Another round of campaign finance reform for greater transparency in donation reporting. Right now, it is too easy for major donors to contribute way more than the legal limit but make it seem as if they are not.

But the Democrats benefit from all those just as much as the Republicans so no one's going to pass them.

bernie sanders for president in 08

People talk about 'middle roads' and 'liberal' democrats. What they don't seem to realise is that BOTH the US parties are pretty rightwing, by the measure of the rest of the world. (By which, of course, I mean Europe).

It's kind of like asking if Hitler and Mussolini could bridge their differences, and find a 'middle road'...

"There ain't nothin' in the middle of the road but yellow lines and dead possums."

Some Texas Democrat said that I think.

And Kerry did come close to beating Bush in 2004, despite the generally spineless campaign he waged. Perhaps you're right, maybe the DNC did decide to take a longer view.


Kerry got the second most votes of any presidential candidate in the nation's history. Problem was, the one who got the most was dubya.

Doesn't appear to be doing shrub much good now...

The problem with this sort of wrong analysis is that it refuses to take into account the fact that politics is local.

US politicians are not measured by voters against french, dutch, norwegian or chinese politicians - they are measured agaisnt their opponents.

There is not a "broad international spectrum" at work in the US, there is a very limited spectrum. American politics can only be sensibly discussed within the bounds of this sepctrum.

American leftists and american right-wingers are not the same as world-average leftists, european leftits, &c &c. As 'left' as you're going to get in the US' two-party government is the Democrats, and their one friend from Vermont. For all intents and purposes, these are the proper terms for the discussion.

This is not a wrong analysis, my friend... the whole point is that there ARE no 'left-and-right' wings to American politics... just right-wing-and-slightly-more-right-wing.

To pretend that there is some huge difference between the parties is somewhere between ignorance and folly - the reason this is important, is because there really ARE people running around wringing their hands and messing their Depends about how America is on the brink of destruction, since 'those liberals' got in.

The truth is - there are bigger divides within either of the two main groups, than there are between them.

The problem is - the propaganda machine has got average America so well trained that they believe the lie.

But they're quite liberal compared to China or Russia, whose populations vastly exceed that of Europe...

By degree... the latest regime has proved US parties are now more afraid of propaganda, thought control, loss of individual freedom, and authoritarianism than thier Chinese or Russian counterparts.

So we've probably got until 2018 until the next one...well, time to get to work. There's plenty to be done, and now they have a chance to prove themselves as a party ready to run the legislative branch.

However, I don't think it will really change much. I'll give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt, but I think it's pretty unlikely that they will be better than the Republicans especially once their power starts to get to their heads.

That was the point of my message to the Democrats