Democrats win in the U.S elections -Bush Trashed! (opinions thread)

Diogenes

flogen wrote:

So what would a Senate win mean for the Dems? I know they'd be able to block conservative judges going to the Supreme Court, but what else can they do that the House cannot (I mean, they obviously can carry the House's legislation through, like the Seanad can with the Dáil, but what else?)

Supreme court has been and gone, baring sudden death there won't be another supreme court judge appointment in the next two years. Bush has got his two conversatives he wanted there already.

What they can do is appoint commitee chairs, start investigations, draft legislation, block budgets.

Its' also a question of what will they do. They need to prove to the country in the next two years that they are a force for change to make themselves ready for the presidental election, if they spend the whole of the two years playing bipartisan snipers they'll never get a democratic president elected.

RedPlanet

Diogenes wrote:

Its' also a question of what will they do. They need to prove to the country in the next two years that they are a force for change to make themselves ready for the presidental election, if they spend the whole of the two years playing bipartisan snipers they'll never get a democratic president elected.

Sez who exactly?
How about this: once they get investations going expose to the public the extent of corruption, cronyism and law breaking that the Bush cabal has hereto enjoyed.
Entirely at the expense of the tax payer.
That, along with a compliant press and you've got the makings of not only impeachment hearings, but perhaps certain folks doing actual jail time whilst packing the rest of the GOP scrambling for cover.

I would say, a Republican wants what you've posted.
While a Democrat is more likely to want a pound of flesh.

Manic Moran

RedPlanet wrote:

I would say, a Republican wants what you've posted.
While a Democrat is more likely to want a pound of flesh.

Not quite. The more liberal Democrats want a pound of flesh. To Pelosi's credit, she's already put down the possibility of impeachments unless something comes up. Because the two-party system is bipolar in theory, but not so in practise (thankfully), most people realise that whether they like it or not, they have to work with some parts of the other side in order to get anything done, even if they have a majority in name. There will be hearings, there will be investigations, but I don't think it's going to go to the extent of witch-hunt or lynch mob: It will just alienate the moderate voters in battleground states that put the Ds in charge, because they are caught in the middle. They want to see a party (preferably both parties) that can work civilly together, even if they don't like each other. That's why the whole McCain 'Gang of 14' deal was so pivotal.

NTM

Chakar

Okay the Democrats have took back control of Congress.They'll be able to get all the stuff that was hidden in the woodworks out into the open.George Bush is going to have a tough next two years considering the ease he "governed" in the last six years.

Also I don't think Bush will be impeached but anyway who knows.

George Bush can still veto bills that he doesn't like irrespective how many times the bill is given to him.Congress can make a bill law by a two thirds majority in both Houses which the Democrats don't have so.

But they do have a huge leverage over what he does in office.Congress is the legislator.

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote:

Not quite. The more liberal Democrats want a pound of flesh. To Pelosi's credit, she's already put down the possibility of impeachments unless something comes up. Because the two-party system is bipolar in theory, but not so in practise (thankfully), most people realise that whether they like it or not, they have to work with some parts of the other side in order to get anything done, even if they have a majority in name. There will be hearings, there will be investigations, but I don't think it's going to go to the extent of witch-hunt or lynch mob: It will just alienate the moderate voters in battleground states that put the Ds in charge, because they are caught in the middle. They want to see a party (preferably both parties) that can work civilly together, even if they don't like each other. That's why the whole McCain 'Gang of 14' deal was so pivotal.
NTM

I took her words with a pinch of salt.
I think you are forgetting that what i am taking about is pretty well exactly what the Republicans did with Clinton.
They didn't suffer for it.
Once the extent of the Bush crimes become known and all the skeletons have been outed from the closets, the GOP will be shamed into the corner.

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote:

Gates is pretty much a professional spy. He served a couple of years as an intelligence officer in the US Air Force, and stayed with the intelligence agencies when he got out of uniform.
He was implicated in the Iran-Contra deal, but nothing ever came of it.
BBC is saying that he has a more consensual management style than Rummy had.
NTM

Well, here's an interesting piece on Gates.
http://www.cq.com/public/20061108_homeland.html
But it doesn't exactly seem as rosy an assessment.

"Then, in during his 1991 nomination hearings to run the CIA, Gates ran into a buzz saw of testimony from a former agency analyst who said that during the 1980s Gates had skewered intelligence to fit the convictions of senior Reagan administration officials that Soviet agents had concocted a plot to assassinate the pope and were arming and encouraging Marxist revolutionary groups to carry out terrorist attacks."

“During his tenure at CIA, Mr. Gates developed a reputation for pressuring analysts and managers to shape analytical conclusions to fit administration positions, a fact that led dozens of current and former CIA analysts to oppose his confirmation as CIA Director in 1991,” said Holt, who will likely chair an intelligence subcommittee starting in January.

Manic Moran

Hmm.

Well, that didn't take long.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Pelosi.htm

As the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Ms. Harman was expected to become chairman of the powerful committee. But Ms. Pelosi is expected to pass over Ms. Harman for either Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida or Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, the second- and third-ranking Democrats on the intelligence panel.

The 42-member Congressional Black Caucus has been pushing for Mr. Hastings, an impeached federal judge, to become chairman. Earlier this year, the caucus was upset by Ms. Pelosi's decision to expel Rep. William Jefferson from the committee after he was accused of accepting bribes.

"There is no seniority on the Intelligence Committee," Ms. Pelosi said. "The leader or the speaker can appoint a whole new set of people."

The sources said the 61-year-old Ms. Harman, regarded as the best informed House Democrat on intelligence and technology issues, angered the liberal Ms. Pelosi by supporting the Bush administration’s policies on defense issues, particularly the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. They said Ms. Pelosi has rebuffed lobbyists in the pro-Israel community and defense industry that sought a chairmanship for Ms. Harman.

"If Nancy Pelosi's apparent determination to deny Jane Harman the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee to appease the Black Caucus is any indication, Democratic control is not going to be good news for those who believe in competent oversight of the national-security apparatus," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute.


Wonderful. Further proof that all politicians, regardless of stripe, are of the same cloth. So instead of picking the acknowledged best person for the job, she's apparently going for a politician who was fired from his previous job as a federal judge by the US Senate for bribery and perjury.

What was the end of Animal Farm? "And the animals looked from the humans to the pigs, and they could no longer tell them apart"

NTM

flogen

Manic Moran wrote:

Wonderful. Further proof that all politicians, regardless of stripe, are of the same cloth. So instead of picking the acknowledged best person for the job, she's apparently going for a politician who was fired from his previous job as a federal judge by the US Senate for bribery and perjury.

What was the end of Animal Farm? "And the animals looked from the humans to the pigs, and they could no longer tell them apart"

NTM

Well that depends on the definition of 'best person for the job', it's obviously objective.
George W. said a week ago Rumsfeld was the best person for the defense job; the people spoke and he changed his mind.
If someone is generally Hawkish then they may not do the best job in the eyes of the Democrats, and so they're not the best person for the job.
There is a difference between being Hawkish and wanting to solve the problem in Iraq (which I chose as the one policy most associated with the Reps in recent years),.

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote:

They said Ms. Pelosi has rebuffed lobbyists in the pro-Israel community and defense industry that sought a chairmanship for Ms. Harman.

well that sounds like a good start at least.

Manic Moran wrote:

"If Nancy Pelosi's apparent determination to deny Jane Harman the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee to appease the Black Caucus is any indication, Democratic control is not going to be good news for those who believe in competent oversight of the national-security apparatus," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute.

Sour grapes.

Manic Moran wrote:

So instead of picking the acknowledged best person for the job, she's apparently going for a politician who was fired from his previous job as a federal judge by the US Senate for bribery and perjury.

I would agree if there are ethical issues surounding that pick.
However i wouldn't go so far as to say she's not picking the acknowledged best person for the job because that is entirely subjective. And on the face of it, in leiu of consistant Intel failures (911, WMD, Bin Laden at large, Iraqi insurgency) i'd say the evidence suggests that the best persons are NOT in the job.

Hobbes

Looks like John Bolton is next for the chopping block. Bush has tried to sneak his job in before the final day of the republican Senate but appears some repubs don't like him either and the democrats are not going to allow him to keep his job.

redspider

Well, I have to say at long last. The US people had their chance the last time to vote Bush and the Republicans out but they didnt. In a dumbed down society where pro-Government pro-Republican media have so much influence, it took some time, but even the Americans managed to do it. Now that makes the English voting back in of Blair look even more stupid.

Of course, the problem always was a lack of a good choice. Many didnt like Bush that much but knew what he was about and he scraped back in. Kerry just wasnt a strong enough candidate to sway the middle voters in the key 'swing' states. Similarly, with Blair. The opposition choices were weak and many backbenchers relied on Blair doing well for their own seats. But change is coming there too.

Of course, this whole thing is over Iraq. I, and many millions of others said before the invasion that it was the wrong thing to do. There were many risks, and many lives would be lost. We have been proven right, unfortunately, and it is the right-wing attitude of the UK and US Governments who are at fault for this.

Its ironic that Saddam Hussein was sentenced to hanging for being impicitly involved in killing 182 or so people in the 1980's. How many Iraqi deaths have Bush and Blair been responsible for, directly from military forces or indirectly by failing to establish a properly governed country, and when will they be brought to trial? No, not in a kangaroo court but in a real internationally recognised court. Oh yeah, the US dont recognise that court. That would be one action that the Democrats should now push for.

The Democrats have a lot of work to do, but if they play their cards right, they could use this opportunity to right a lot of wrongs and to get back the Presidency and retain hold of the 2 houses.

This eletion result has been an important change in the landscape of world politics, and lets hope it it is one of many positive steps.

So today, I would like to thank all the US voters that voted Democrat (or independent, such as in the case of Lieberman) and would encourage those remaining Republican to think again the next time they vote.

Oh yeah, FG and Labour, a question for you. Will you promise to stop all US military or otherwise hidden/covert flights from using Ireland as a stop-over? We have given FF/PD's the chance to do so, but they havent done it. We know where the Green Party stand on this. Will it be an election pledge?

Redspider

gandalf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6134734.stm

Yep looks like Bolton is going to be looking for a new job, fairly dramatic change already from this result with Donnie going and now John. All the neo-con hawks are being put to the sword one by one.

flogen

gandalf wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6134734.stm

Yep looks like Bolton is going to be looking for a new job, fairly dramatic change already from this result with Donnie going and now John. All the neo-con hawks are being put to the sword one by one.

Interesting; I wonder if we'll see a country that's more willing to work with the UN, rather than use it as its personal play thing when it wants and ignore it when it gets bored.

fly_agaric

redspider wrote:

Now that makes the English (British?) voting back in of Blair look even more stupid.

Not really. The main opposition party actually supported licking GWB's bottom and going into Iraq more unanimously than the Labour party did. Most people do not vote on a single issue in any election. Iraq is a much bigger issue for the US than the UK, and even in the US perhaps perceptions of Republican political corruption and arrogance + hypocrisy at home also played into the outcome.

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote:

He was implicated in the Iran-Contra deal, but nothing ever came of it.

That's not saying much though.

sovtek

redspider wrote:

So today, I would like to thank all the US voters that voted Democrat (or independent, such as in the case of Lieberman) and would encourage those remaining Republican to think again the next time they vote.

You do realize that Leiberman supported the war in Iraq. Hell he even blamed Columbine on Marilyn Manson.

Manic Moran

flogen wrote:

Interesting; I wonder if we'll see a country that's more willing to work with the UN, rather than use it as its personal play thing when it wants and ignore it when it gets bored.

I doubt it. The Administration remains the same.

NTM

cooker3

I love these posts

redspider wrote:

Well, I have to say at long last. The US people had their chance the last time to vote Bush and the Republicans out but they didnt. In a dumbed down society where pro-Government pro-Republican media have so much influence, it took some time, but even the Americans managed to do it.

I know, us europeans are so much more enlightened and far more intelligent aren't we, we could teach those thick americans a thing or 2.
Yeah all the media is dominated by right wing factions, all the network news broadcasts, new york and la times, just do GWB job for him

redspider wrote:

Now that makes the English voting back in of Blair look even more stupid.

Sure all those who voted for Blair are really kicking themselves that an election in a differant country voted for the left leaning party, how will they sleep at night!

redspider wrote:

Of course, the problem always was a lack of a good choice. Many didnt like Bush that much but knew what he was about and he scraped back in.

Yes but many did like him as well, as for scraping back in, that is 1 way of putting it, another way of putting it is he got most votes for any us presidental candidate in history but ultimately it doesn't matter how you spin it, he won. It's not like parliament where winning and also how much you win by matters, it could be tight like it was or he could have won all 50 states, doesn't make a differance as long as you win.

redspider wrote:

Kerry just wasnt a strong enough candidate to sway the middle voters in the key 'swing' states. Similarly, with Blair. The opposition choices were weak and many backbenchers relied on Blair doing well for their own seats. But change is coming there too.

Of course, this whole thing is over Iraq. I, and many millions of others said before the invasion that it was the wrong thing to do. There were many risks, and many lives would be lost. We have been proven right, unfortunately, and it is the right-wing attitude of the UK and US Governments who are at fault for this.

Yes millions didn't protest, but many more millions didn't protest.
As for the right wing attitude of uk and us governmentss, we all know right wing == wrong and evil of course

redspider wrote:

Its ironic that Saddam Hussein was sentenced to hanging for being impicitly involved in killing 182 or so people in the 1980's. How many Iraqi deaths have Bush and Blair been responsible for, directly from military forces or indirectly by failing to establish a properly governed country, and when will they be brought to trial? No, not in a kangaroo court but in a real internationally recognised court. Oh yeah, the US dont recognise that court. That would be one action that the Democrats should now push for.

Well he was sentenced for that particular 182 people, but there are many many other examples of death involving Saddam.
When will they be brought for trial, never of course.
The democrats can push all the like for icc but they are not going to get it and I doubt they will push it but hey wait and see.

redspider wrote:

The Democrats have a lot of work to do, but if they play their cards right, they could use this opportunity to right a lot of wrongs and to get back the Presidency and retain hold of the 2 houses.

agreed, this is good platform to run in 08 for them

redspider wrote:

This eletion result has been an important change in the landscape of world politics, and lets hope it it is one of many positive steps.

So today, I would like to thank all the US voters that voted Democrat (or independent, such as in the case of Lieberman) and would encourage those remaining Republican to think again the next time they vote.

I am sure the republicans will listen to your request and take it under advisement.

Lirange

Looks like the Irish ... I mean the Irish-Americans ... er that is American politicians of Irish descent had a major role in this dressing down of Bush and his party.

In the House ...

Democrat Gerry McNerney unseats Republican incumbent Pombo in California

Democrat Chris Murphy unseats Republican incumbent Johnson in Connecticut

Democrat Joseph Donnelly unseats Rebublican incumbent Chocola in Indiana

Democrat Patrick Murphy unseats Republican incumbent Fitzpatrick in Pennsylvania.

Democrat Christopher Carney unseats Republican incumbent Sherwood in
Pennsylvania.

Democrat Timothy Mahoney unseats Republican incumbent Foley in Florida


In the Senate ...

Bob Casey unseats Republican incumbent Santorum in Pennsylvania.


A few states had elections for Governor as well.

Martin O'Malley was elected Governor of the State of Maryland (formerly held by a Republican).

Joseph Doyle also was elected Governor of Wisconsin.

Governors are important in presidential election years it seems because they pull so many strings at the state-level. So it should be more favourable in the states the Dems picked up for the 2008 Presidential election.

There were also many incumbent Democrats of Irish descent that retained their seats too. In fact I don't think there were any Democrats that lost seats were there?

Go the Irish! I mean American politicians of Irish Descent!

fly_agaric

^^Well Foley and Fitzpatrick (Republicans in your little list??) are Irish names too...:)