And now the Senate!
posted by Ryanetics at 3:00 PM
Thursday, November 09, 2006
About Me
- Name: Ryanetics
- Location: athens, Georgia, United States
Who is more nerdy? The nerd, or the nerd who reads his blog?
www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos and videos from steverogers. Make your own badge here.
Previous Posts
- The Action 5
- BOOYA! IN YO FACE!
- SMILES
- You go Joe!
- Tonight's the night
- The New Lockwoods
- Someone call the burn unit!
- Time to VOTE!
- This guy was just busted for buying meth and payin...
- WWJD? Not this, that's for damn sure.
11 Comments:
I actually was considering the possibility of this yesterday and had a question for you:
Do you think that with Democarativ majorities in both the house and senate could wind up having a similar effect as when the republicans took a sweeping majority in 1994?
What I mean is this: when the party oppositte the one in power takes a majority in congress then the default setting of that congress tends to be to stimie all efforts of the 'ruling' party. Even moderate and progressive ideas tend to get trounced merely because the 'ruling' party has tried to introduce them.
(Not that the Republicans have a surplus off these; indeed, I think the democrats only have a smattering of them).
In some ways I think such a practice can be good sinc the oublic has effectively said "damn, let's just stop the guys in power until thext presidential election" and then, on the other hand, it seems to grind government to a standstill.
Remember when Clinton couldn't get a damn law passed after 1994?
I dunno. I'm generally really suspicious about voting trends that are primarily "anti-incumbency" and not policy driven (which I kind of this this is, as it was in 1994, but that's a complicated area)but on the other hand it certainly send the 'message', if you will, that i think voters were trying to send.
Besides, I think Lincoln would roll over in his grave if he'd seen what has become of his party.
rock on, sir.
I do think it could have that effect to some degree but as you pointed out I think that was the overwhelming intent of the public's vote. If American's wanted Bush to be able to get anything done in the next two years they wouldn't have voted the Democrats in.
This election was all about changing the direction of the country. Hell, even 25% of Evangelical Christians voted for Democrats. Now that is crazy. Those people were pissed.
Do I think it is good that Bush might not be able to get anything done for the next two years? Probably. I don't want government to grind to a hault but he hasn't done anything in the last 6 years that I agree with so I sure as Hell don't want him to do anything else.
The one thing I have noticed though is that everyone realizes what happened on Tuesday. Bush admitted it in his speech on Wednesday and Dems have been for the most part very cautious in their victory. I don't think you are going to see big acts of revenge against Bush (Dems know it would waste too much time for very little gain) and by yanking Rumsfeld and saying he admits now that we need change in Iraq, Bush has effectively taken off his ten gallon hat and come to the table.
Will this all last? I highly doubt it. I don't think for a second that everyone is going to just play nice now. Everyone knows that the American people are pissed and they voted with anger not hope on Tuesday. So, everyone is making friendly - Republicans are basically begging for forgiveness and Dems are worried about getting too excited at the prospect of finally having power again.
BUT, one little slip up on either side and we've got a metaphorical assasination of Arch Duke Ferdinand on our hands - we head right back into the trenches WWI style.
Do I want national health care, an end to the war, an end to corporate subsidies, a shift towards renewable energy, an overhaul of the education system, legalization of gay marriage, real equal rights for all humans, decriminalization of soft drugs like pot, public campaign financing and tons of other things? Of course - I am a essentially a Socialist.
Do I think any of that will happen? Not a chance.
I am just happy that there will finally be some oversight.
Oh, and yeah, Lincoln is like that sad indian in littering commercial from the 60's right now.
Actually someone should do a velvet painting of Lincoln looking down from the heavens shedding a single tear as he looks down at America.
"legalization of gay marriage, real equal rights for all humans, decriminalization of soft drugs like pot" & "an end to corporate subsidies".
Those ideals are more lbertarian than socialist but I know what you mean. Although I think all drugs should be legal.
Well Libertarians do get some things right, the only problem is that in the end they usually turn out to be kind of insane in the Ted Kazynski kind of way.
Hmmm. Always with the nut-job references, huh?
Thomas Jefferson was quite libertarian. How come no one ever mentions him?
When I say 'libertarian' I don't mean the party but the principle (note my use of the small 'l'). It can also be referred to as classical liberalism.
I assume Ryan means that he is socially libertarian but economically socialist, i.e., take money from rich people and give it to poor people. That's certainly where I fall.
Yup, Hillary I think you and I are pretty much on the same page when it comes to sociopolitical matters.
Actually someone should do a velvet painting of Lincoln looking down from the heavens shedding a single tear as he looks down at America.
I now know exactly what i'm getting if I ever get a tattoo.
Jared I am now taking up a collection to raise money for your new tattoo. It will cover your whole back and clearly it will be awesome.
I am for maximmum freedom and the smallest possible goverment. I have no viable political home in the United States.
Post a Comment
<< Home