The thing that made me decide the estate tax might be a good idea was when I started meeting lots of trust fund liberals. Then I started meeting the trust fund socialists. I then decided these people needed to go out and find real jobs rather than work at an NGO and telling me I was not paying enough money in taxes. I also think that there should be a draft, but only for rich idiots like Paris Hilton.
And the Democrat platform is what, exactly? 2002 - We hate George Bush" 2004 - No, really, we hate George Bush 2006 - George Bush is the antiChrist The Democrats have no ideas, no plans and nothing whatever to contribute, but they do plan on spending the next couple of years trying to figure it out. The Republicans lost comparatively few seats compared to the average 6th year administration. The reason they lost is because they forgot what they were about, and because they tried to please the media which was a waste of time. Fortunately, two things will happen in the next two years: 1) the Republicans will go back to being conservatives 2) the Democrats will remind people why they voted them out in the first place All in all, a good thing. Having a Bay Area left wing whackjob as the Speaker of the House, and Filthy Money Harry (when will the media get around to giving a crap about that thief?) will bury the Democrats forever. See you in 2008, losers.
The strange thing is that the GOP has been devoid of an agenda since they tossed Newt overboard, yet they kept winning while running on fumes. The agenda that dubya developed is chaotic and nearly totally in a bad direction (futile nation-building and spend like a Dem). My guess is that the GOP will be in dubya's hole for awhile, because he's still digging. The Dems will enjoy a couple of years at dubya's expense. I'll be surprised if they start pushing their craziest notions, but then you don't have to go too far in to get to the crazy notions with the Dems.
Close: the 2006 platform was "See, we told you so." And yes, the Dems do have plans--lots of them. Some of those plans--such as requiring Medicare to bargain with drug companies, strengthening port security, and implementing the 9-11 Comission's recommendations--are fairly common-sense plans. They're just lacking a coherent plan for Iraq, but the public eventually realized that the Republicans also lacked a coherent plan as well. The GOP's problem wasn't the media--that's ridiculous, and you know it. The GOP's problem was that Bush's resume consisted of management failure after management failure, and the party still nominated him, assuming that his affability would compensate for his organizational ineptitude. Case in point: the person given the responsibility of starting Iraq's stock exchange was a 24-year-old donor (IIRC) who had absolutely no experience in finance. None. Nada. Nil. Add to this Heckuvajob Brownie, Harriet Miers, etc., and the problem becomes crystal clear. The public wasn't aching for a return to Goldwater conservatism; they were simply sick of watching their representatives rubber-stamp proposals made by a group of cronies with no acumen for policy. Collectively, the Republican leadership proved to be incapable of curbing their own worst impulses. The media has ******** all to do with this, and you know it. Had the media been more fearless on 9-12, we wouldn't be mired in Iraq right now. That and Mark Foley. Foley was a godsend to the Democrats.
So the media had nothing to do with the Republicans' failure to win the 2006 election, but they had the power to have kept us out of Iraq?
I'm still waiting to hear all these great plans from the dems that just won seats, they seem to be pro gun and anti-gay marriage. I've not heard medicare brought up much but maybe that's just the media's fault, which would be the biggest failure of the media since they didn't stop the Iraq war. p.s. Mark Foley
I agree, which is why I do not think it was the real reason, though it started the decline. I am glad that the GOP got thrashed a bit becuase had we kept control of the House by a thread, or had we won 210 or so seats, the leadership would have blamed Foley and gone on its merry way. This way, we can clean them out and get in new leadership (PENCE!) Anyway, here is a little something to get the blood flowing: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/mp3clips/politicalspeeches/ronaldreaganatimeforchoosing4534w.mp3
Yeah the Republicans sucked, we all admit it, right? And Foley was not the reason, he was just one of many. But look at the democrats - Bo claims they have ideas and stuff but all they ran on was "the republicans suck, vote for me!". Here in Michigan our Governor (Granholm) ran ads against Devos and spent most of the commercial bashing Bush and then at the end it said "Devos has failed Michigan".....yet SHE was the Governor!!!!! In the 4 years she has been governor crime is up in Michigan, unemployment is up, property values are down, the single business tax has kept jobs from coming here and her whole campaign was "George Bush sucks". John Conyers ad was saying George Bush and the Republicans are racist (ok he didn't use the word racist but he said he'll take away your rights and showed pictures of black kids graduating from college and then black kids getting arrested in the next sequence). From my seat in Michigan it seemed the dems ran on "the republicans suck". Now that is fine, it worked. The Republicans do it too. But don't let some of these fools here on bigsoccer deny it. They claim Republicans use National Security to scare people into voting for them, well the democrats use fear as well, calling conservatives racist (and don't give me any b.s. about ads in tennesee when dems run ads saying bush was responsible for james byrd). I really wish Bo and the others would just admit his party is just as full of shit and clueless as the republicans that draw their ire.
But you don’t understand. Life is already looking up. Afghanistan news before election Afghanistan news after election Oh, and the media has absolutely nothing to do with public opinion.
Meh. There are still plenty of hold-outs in districts/states that are incredibly still clinging onto the hope that our government (both Reeps AND Dems, btw; far too many Dems didn't have the balls/ovaries to stand up for what they knew was a war that was/is dumb as fuck, choosing instead to play the "hey, I'll go along w/ a popular prez, just like virtually the entire Reep congressional body) wouldn't play games w/ the lives of citizens. And they're still buying that the Reeps will do a better job of protecting us, despite the fact that neither party truly put the needs of our citizens ahead of "the political power game". THAT is a human travesty. That so many of our goddamn "representatives" politicked our nation's security. They just rubber stamped the president's wishes. And now they're paying. Anywho... I don't think that either party is inherently more capable of protecting the citizenry. DIALOGUE is the key. Unfortunately, Bush didn't really like dialogue all that much. Yes. But that conveniently forgets the reason why they won in the first place. They didn't win b/c the country is radically further right than left. To boot, state legislatures are roughly equal, moreso than at any point in our nation's history, iirc. They won b/c of 9/11 and the political momentum that Bush was able to gather. I don't see it. Is there going to be another 9/11? Do you honestly think that the Dems would get blamed? Or the party that had absolute power for so damn long? And the same prez that did such a stunning job w/ Katrina? Wow. If you think Pelosi is going to rule from the SF left... you're in for a surprise. Now. Granted. Having a cogent, articulate left-winger in that position will push the agenda towards the left, but expect it to be things that the populace actually agrees w/, like reproductive rights, stem-cell research, minimum wage increase, and get this... ...actually acknowledging what BushCo has thoroughly ignored in 6 years: Skyrocketing health insurance premiums!!! You mean when the Reeps have something like 20 seats in the Senate coming up for re-election and retirements and continued scandals to displace more representatives? It's a date.
dialogue! Yes! ******** Yes! It's certainly helped in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All those peace deals, all those accords, all those concessions the jews made all paid off, now they live in peace. Dialog"ue" also defeated the Nazi's, displaced the Taliban, ended slaughter of the serbs, and of course the Sudan so I am glad you are mentioning it again.
Please tell me you're joking. Please. I hope to GOD you're joking. But just to clarify... 'cuz it looks like you're not too bright, despite your condescending attitude 'bout how brilliant you are... I was referring to dialogue w/in the US. Amongst our leaders in Congress. You see, I thought it would be utterly clear that I was speaking domestically in the post you cite. Unless you consider Saddam a US citizen.
as usual, nothing to dispute. when you graduate from high school feel free to attempt an honest debate.
Pelosi is actually going to address tort reform and out of control malpractice insurance premiums? I'm not holding my breath...
just to note, you added this stuff after my response. If you want dialogue about national security in the U.S., fine. I'm on board with that. However I suspect putting the guys who cry about the poor terrorists phone calls being tapped and no free access to dental care for Taliban members are not the best guys to trust with national security. Maybe I'm wrong, I mean maybe we should hire Madeline Albright again since she was so ********ing brilliant. If you want dialogue on my condescending attitude 'bout how brilliant I am, we can do that too. I am awesome. In the morning I wake up and I am awesome. I eat lunch and look in the mirror and I am still awesome. When the sun goes down at night I completely rule and celebrate my awesomness by having lots of sex with supermodels. And I have an extremely high IQ and read the wall street journal. Because I am awesome.
Well they have free health care and no poverty in California so I am sure she can do it in the rest of the Country. And I am awesome.
The RNC, maybe not, but recall that several conservative publications (including The National Review) endorsed Specter's opponent in his last primary.
You don't really mean that, do you Bill? I'm about as unenthused about this election result as any registered Democrat I know (mostly because the Democrats didn't so much win as the Republicans tried so hard to lose), but the notion that the Republicans will bury the Democrats in 2008 is nonsense. I think we're looking at years of stalemate ahead of us. Precisely the way it should be. The Democrats failed to control themselves when they were in power in 92-94 whereas the Republican excess in the last 6 years was of simply epic proportion. Its time for some gridlock. And it will be good for the country. I will add, however, that the Republicans are damn lucky this election didn't involve the Presidency. Or maybe not, had Kerry run again. Its embarassing how the Democratic party is incapable of finding a decent Presidential candidate. Go Evan Bayh 2008!
Congrats on the success of the election, guys. The world applauds you. But, he said: "With the scandalous defeat of America's policies in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan, America's threats are empty threats on an international scale."