View Full Version : American Elections
Seamus Fermanagh
11-08-2006, 05:07
For those of you keeping tabs:
As of 11pm EST, projections show the Democrats controlling the House of Representatives (starting in January) with a pickup of 20-25 seats [15 needed for control]. The Senate seems likely to be retained by the Republicans, but by a much narrower margin than previously. It is still possible that a near tie will occur, making the role of independents Leiberman and Sanders more important.
By-the-way, Sanders, just elected to the Senate from Vermont, is the USA's one ardent socialist in high political office. Vermont adores him.
Well, I certainly won't miss Chafee... Too bad about Santorum, but if Casey is anything like his father and sticks to his campaign positions they have similar views anyhow- pro-life, pro-Iraq, yada yada.
The GOP House leadership was pretty feckless, so I certainly won't mourn their losing positions of power either. And with apparent GOP control of the Senate retained, there's still some hope for judicial nominations.
Edit: I'm also glad to wave goodbye to the mistress strangling philanderer in the next disctrict over from mine. My only regret is not being able to vote to help send him packing.
Hurin_Rules
11-08-2006, 05:29
Headline: Public Finally Realizes Emperor Bush Has No Clothes.
And yes, like liberty, freedom and the Democrats, I'm back :)
Crazed Rabbit
11-08-2006, 05:31
Well, the GOP has lost the house. Hopefully it keeps the Senate.
Also, I hope this sends a big smack to the stupid faces of the GOP leadership who seem to think pork is the way to go.
CR
Also, I hope this sends a big smack to the stupid faces of the GOP leadership who seem to think pork is the way to go.Amen to that. But, as I've said before- I'm afraid they'll think they lost because they didnt bring home enough pork instead of too much. :sweatdrop:
Crazed Rabbit
11-08-2006, 05:41
Oh crap, it looks like Burner is in the (slim) lead right now. Gah, we already have Jim Mcdermott, please don't let WA elect Darcy Burner
CR
Celtic_Guardian
11-08-2006, 05:43
Kerry Healey learned negative campaign ads dont work.......she won most of the rich Massachusetts towns, surprise surprise she lost the following by wide margins
Fitchburg (featured in a book as one the worst places to live in the US)
Worcester-low income
Springfield-low income
Gloucester-fishing town/low income
Boston-urban
New Bedford-low income
Lynn-low income
I guess all her "cop killer" tv ads were ineffective. Good try, next time, try doing more than screaming "COMMUNIST" if you want to be a govenor.
Deval Patrick will be the second African-American govenor in U.S history.
I'm afraid they'll think they lost because they didnt bring home enough pork instead of too much. :sweatdrop:
How is that possible? They increased our unfunded debt by 100% over four years! How much pork would they need to buy one-party power forever? I mean, really. There's be pork in the trees, bacon on the roads, ham blanketing the countryside. This last Congress approached the hypothetical limit of pork. They were the lightspeed of pork, past which no object can move. They were the black hole of pork, from which not even light escapes.
Having lived at the apogee of pork, surely even the G.O.P. must now see that bloated pet project spending isn't the way to retain power ...
Crazed Rabbit
11-08-2006, 05:48
I hope you're right Lemur. Otherwise, we may have two vastly incompetent parties.
CR
Prince of the Poodles
11-08-2006, 05:52
Hmm.. If Iraq is still going poorly in 08, the democrats will lose a big part of their appeal.
By taking power, they are now taking some responsibility(in the eyes of the average voter) in what happens in Iraq.
This could set the Reps up perfectly for 08. Bush will be gone, dems wont be able to blame everything on the Reps, and the problems over the last few years may well be forgotten.
If the Reps get their act together, they could sweep in with a new Pres and a fresh set of politicians. :shrug:
In my opinion, the Reps have much better presidential pickings than the Dems. If anybody thinks Barak Obama is the next US president, Ive got a bridge to sell you. :laugh4:
How is that possible? They increased our unfunded debt by 100% over four years! How much pork would they need to buy one-party power forever? I mean, really. There's be pork in the trees, bacon on the roads, ham blanketing the countryside. This last Congress approached the hypothetical limit of pork. They were the lightspeed of pork, past which no object can move. They were the black hole of pork, from which not even light escapes.
Having lived at the apogee of pork, surely even the G.O.P. must now see that bloated pet project spending isn't the way to retain power ...
My statement was based on the derisive term used to refer to the Republican Study Committee (aka the real conservatives). They had been referred to as the "minority caucus", because if their policies were implemented the GOP would be the minority party again.
Obviously, they were stupid and wrong to say such (this election is evidence), but when arent politicians stupid and wrong? I hope the notion is wrong too- but I have to consider the worst case as well. On the bright side, the GOP leadership in the House is likely to have their leadership positions now challenged, so maybe the influence of these knuckleheads will be lessened.
Hurin_Rules
11-08-2006, 06:00
The Senate is still in play folks.
As of midnight EST, Webb just pulled ahead of Allen by 2,500 votes in Virginia. There will surely be a recount and lawsuits, but it looks like control of the entire senate will come down to a single race in Montana that is way to early to call.
Looks like it'll be a long night... but a bit longer for the Republicans.
Crazed Rabbit
11-08-2006, 06:03
Well, I remember the Dem Senate candidate from Montana being very conservative. So maybe not all is lost.
On the bright side, there might be a purge of big-govt republicans.
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
11-08-2006, 06:05
Wow that webb v allen race is close. Don't the Dems need 3 more seats to control the senate?
Hurin_Rules
11-08-2006, 06:08
Yep, they need Virginia and 2 more, out of Tenessee, Montana and Missouri... odds are still against them, but wow, is it ever a nailbiter.
discovery1
11-08-2006, 06:13
Oh man, AP has the dems ahead in VA by 3,000 votes. Pretty close in Montana too, also 3,000 although that is Montana. The dems also seem to think that TN can be taken, but I doubt it. Note that 2025 of 2330 Precincts Reporting in TN as of now.
Proletariat
11-08-2006, 06:13
Nice. I live in Va and got a real brow-beating from my Momma for not getting out and voting. I just didn't feel like wasting the gas and time on voting libertarian, but unfortunately I promised her dinner if her party lost by one vote.
Yep, they need Virginia and 2 more, out of Tenessee, Montana and Missouri... odds are still against them, but wow, is it ever a nailbiter.
I'd be surprised if Tennessee doesnt go to the GOP. The other 2 states are far more uncertain.
Lord Winter
11-08-2006, 06:14
3 more 2 for a tie.
Looks like we're going to a stand still, as dems don't control enough to override a veto. It will be interesting to see if bush stays as the president with the lowest amount of vetos.
Prince of the Poodles
11-08-2006, 06:16
http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/COVER/061107/STG_MEGA_Pelosi_858p.jpg
God help us.
Look into her eyes. Pure evil.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO
:end:
Sasaki Kojiro
11-08-2006, 06:21
http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/COVER/061107/STG_MEGA_Pelosi_858p.jpg
God help us.
Look into her eyes. Pure evil.
Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."
Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds _ "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.
All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.
Sounds pretty good to me :2thumbsup:
Look into her eyes. Pure evil.
And Hastert was pure good? Feh, the Dems are going to have a narrow majority of at leasy one House. Whether or not Pelosi is the apotheosis of Baby Boomer foulness, she'll be limited in what she can do.
[edit]
Interesting poll: (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/index.html)
By a wide margin, Americans who voted Tuesday in the midterm election say they disapprove of the war in Iraq.
But when asked which issue was extremely important to their vote, more voters said corruption and ethics in government than any other issue, including the war, according to national exit polls.
Hurin_Rules
11-08-2006, 06:22
I'd be surprised if Tennessee doesnt go to the GOP. The other 2 states are far more uncertain.
Yep, I agree, I think the GOP has Tennessee. Which means it's down to Montana and Missouri, and both seem up for grabs.
This is turning out to be a longer contest than fighting back the Mongol Horde in MTW 1.
Divinus Arma
11-08-2006, 06:27
Congratulations to the ORG leftist liberals of America. You and your ilk will now control a major component of the U.S. Congress.
It has been a long road and analysis is not something I feel like undertaking at this hour. Regardless, I congratulate you on your victory.
If nothing else, this vote has shown us all how wonderful the United states is when compared against the backwards tyrannical theocratic governments of the world. Our people will freely choose to be taxed, to be controlled by madmen, and to have American values sacrificed at the altar of instant gratification.
Thank God this will be a divided lame duck government and the lunatic left can push nothing through. The only thing that matters now is 2008. John McCain seems to be the frontrunner, and with a Democrat congress:
VIVA EL UNITIDO STATES OF EL MEXICO!!!!
Prepare for the invasion. The United States will fall to a 3rd world invasion because of this. Liberals will dominate for 100 years. And that means we will die in a terrorist nuclear holocaust.
Congratulations.
Crazed Rabbit
11-08-2006, 06:28
And Hastert was pure good?
No, he was only partially evil. Well, mostly evil as he's a politician, but not pure evil.
Yep, they need Virginia and 2 more, out of Tenessee, Montana and Missouri... odds are still against them, but wow, is it ever a nailbiter.
They might get Virginia, but I don't think they'll get Missouri or TN. Montana- who knows?
So I think we'll keep the Senate.
Sounds pretty good to me
One word: Veto.
Oh, and bi-cameral legislature.
CR
Samurai Waki
11-08-2006, 06:31
Hmmm... I've always liked Montana Dems...much like myself. Socially Conservative, Economically Liberal.
BTW, the Whole Iraq mess isn't going to be resolved in the Senate anyways, it's the House that matters, and it's now in control of the Dems. Bush is going to be in power for 2 VERRRRY Long Years.
PS: The GOP Lost Montana.
Divinus Arma
11-08-2006, 06:36
Socially Conservative, Economically Liberal.
The worst of the worst: we want to control your pocketbooks AND your lifestyles. Th exact opposite of everything I believe in. I tolerate social conservatism for economic conservatism.
The most important quality os constituional conservatism: Social liberalism and economic/governmental conservatism. This is the idea that government should not legislate American culture.
Proletariat
11-08-2006, 06:39
Seriously! Socially conservative but a left on economics? I think I'm gonna be sick...
Samurai Waki
11-08-2006, 06:40
mwahahahaha :evil:
I Love Reactionists.
AntiochusIII
11-08-2006, 06:43
Seriously! Socially economic and fiscally conservative? I think I'm gonna be sick...Socially economic?
By the way, Wakizashi, what do you mean by "economically liberal"? In a classical sense, laissez-faire, treat your factory workers as slaves for economic benefit; or in liberal as in (evil murderous...ahem, DA did that, no need for repeating) incorporating socialistic elements into the economy?
Sasaki Kojiro
11-08-2006, 06:44
Looks like the GOP won Tennessee...NBC is saying Webb will win in Virginia though.
Claire McCaskill (DEM) 754,879 48%
Jim Talent (REP)* 753,698 48%
74% of precincts reporting
Clooose...
Jon Tester (DEM) 73,450 54%
Conrad Burns (REP)* 59,659 44%
31% of precincts reporting
Samurai Waki
11-08-2006, 06:48
Socially economic?
By the way, Wakizashi, what do you mean by "economically liberal"? In a classical sense, laissez-faire, treat your factory workers as slaves for economic benefit; or in liberal as in (evil murderous...ahem, DA did that, no need for repeating) incorporating socialistic elements into the economy?
Its High Time that the US Abandons it's foolish Democratic Ways, and installs a good ol' Dictatorship.
I guess my dry sense of humor doesn't always dawn on everyone:shrug:
In Reality I'm the exact opposite.
Republican in the sense that I don't like Hippies, Democratic in the sense that I actually want to send my children to good schools. (even if OMG we need to raise taxes to do so...idiots...)
AntiochusIII
11-08-2006, 06:52
I guess my dry sense of humor doesn't always dawn on everyone:shrug: My rapier wit is as sharp as a frickin' basketball; of which I must express my sincere apologies. ~:)
It ought to be noted, however, that this is election day. People are crazy.
...not to mention I see first-hand what it's like to witness a Republican ad campaign. My school is/was a polling station; the law states that no political advertising can happen within 100 ft of the polling station.
Most probably see this coming, but I came to school to see a big advertisement for the Republican candidate for governor (here in NV) right in front of the school entrance, "just outside" the 100 ft range.
Not illegal at all, but kind of made me sad. :thumbsdown:
Crazed Rabbit
11-08-2006, 07:58
Gah, Talent is losing in Missouri. The dems could pull out the Senate.
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
11-08-2006, 08:00
Precincts Reporting: 2433 of 2443 (99.59%)
Registered Voters: 4,555,672 Total Voting: 2,347,541 Voter Turnout: 51.53 %
Candidates Party Vote Totals Percentage
J H Webb Jr Democratic 1,162,004 49.50%
G F Allen Republican 1,157,259 49.30%
G G Parker Independent Green 25,968 1.11%
Write Ins 2,310 0.10%
JJon Tester (DEM) 124,104 51%
Conrad Burns (REP)* 114,232 47%
64% of precincts reporting
Claire McCaskill (DEM) 867,295 49%
Jim Talent (REP)* 842,170 48%
85% of precincts reporting
Woo-haw!
Hurin_Rules
11-08-2006, 08:04
My lord, the Dems might actually take the Senate too!
Though in Virginia, I think we're definitely in for a recount, and that can't even begin until November 27th; we probably won't have a final, definite answer on Virginia until sometime in December.
Crazed Rabbit
11-08-2006, 08:06
If dems win the 3 races Sasaki listed, will that give them 51?
Gah. Well...a wakeup call to the GOP, I hope.
CR
God I hope neither party takes the senate. I want a 50/50 split. Make any vote claw it's compromising way through.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-08-2006, 08:07
According to this website: http://sbe.virginiainteractive.org/index.htm
Webb has pulled ahead by 7,000. If he pulls ahead by 11,000 Allen will have to pay for the recount by himself.
Yup, the dems need all 3. A 50/50 split would really be a republican majority since the VP is republican.
Major Robert Dump
11-08-2006, 08:07
Happy to see a man of Webbs credentials beat out a sucker like Allen. He trailed all night by 30k or more, then jumped ahead at the last minute. The absentee votes still have to be counted, but seeing as how Webb is former Navy and most Virginian military votes will be placed my people out at sea, I assume those will go to Webb.
Also very, very happy to see Leiberman stick it to the Democrats. Now he may very well be the swing voter in a split Senate, won't that be Ironic, now he can screw the people who hung him out to dry.
The conservative wing of the Democrats are not going to mesh well with San Fran lefties like Pelosi, and I'm curious just how easy the speakership will be for her to get. the best way to ensure a Republican president in 2008 is to have Pelosi at the helms of the House.
On the local level, Oklahoma Democrat Governor Brad Henry -- who was endorsed over his opponent by the NRA and enacted the biggest tax cuts in state history -- beat out Rep Earnest Istook, a far right religious jerk who brought nothing to the table but rhetoric. Henry destroyed Istook in the debates, and has won by 40% margin.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-08-2006, 08:17
Missouri goes for Democrats.
Jon Tester (DEM) 130,762 50%
Conrad Burns (REP)* 121,857 47%
67% of precints reporting
J H Webb Jr Democratic 1,167,053 49.56%
G F Allen Republican 1,159,238 49.23%
G G Parker Independent Green 26,024 1.11%
99% of precincts reporting
Major Robert Dump
11-08-2006, 08:22
It's funny how the Republicans were Big Vaginas and backed off comprehensive immigration reform until after the election. Guess that didn't work out too well for them. And now we are going to have Kennedy, Clinton and Pelosi shaping the reform instead. Talk about a backfire, thanks guys, I'll start brushing up on my Spanish!!!!
Crazed Rabbit
11-08-2006, 08:29
Really. ******* morons in charge of the GOP. We could've done something about the border but noooooooo, and now Pelosoi controls the house meaning no more border security at best.
All the state initiatives I supported are failing. Now we'll have power companies required to go 15% 'renewable' energy by 2020 or something. And guess what? Water power isn't renewable apparently.
CR
Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.Has anyone read all of their recommendations? :dizzy2:
Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Completely horrible idea.
Republican in the sense that I don't like Hippies, Democratic in the sense that I actually want to send my children to good schools. (even if OMG we need to raise taxes to do so...idiots...)Don't you think we waste enough money on schools already?
Crazed Rabbit
11-08-2006, 08:41
Republican in the sense that I don't like Hippies, Democratic in the sense that I actually want to send my children to good schools. (even if OMG we need to raise taxes to do so...idiots...)
Democrats are against actually improving schools, they are only pro throwing more money and hoping that helps the problem. Namely, they oppose school vouchers because it would increase competition in schools and the teacher's unions hate that they might have to perform well to keep their jobs.
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
11-08-2006, 08:49
Democrats are against actually improving schools, they are only pro throwing more money and hoping that helps the problem. Namely, they oppose school vouchers because it would increase competition in schools and the teacher's unions hate that they might have to perform well to keep their jobs.
CR
Yes. We want to keep our kids stupid so they can go work in the tye-dye mines.
What would throwing school vouchers at schools and hoping it increases competition do? Schools competing wouldn't lead to better education. You'd have mandatory SAT prep courses to make the schools numbers look better and stupid stuff like that. The current system allows for selection between public school anyhow, and it's not like private schools are better.
Hurin_Rules
11-08-2006, 08:49
Webb is now up in Virginia by 11,000 votes. Looks like Virginia is going Democrat.
The last real race is in Montana. Last I saw, with 72% reporting, the Democrat was ahead by 7,000, but the Republican's supporters were saying many of the precincts that have not yet reported skew Republican.
If Montana goes Democrat, I'm pretty sure the Dem's have the senate too. But it's still too close to call.
Crazed Rabbit
11-08-2006, 09:02
Yes. We want to keep our kids stupid so they can go work in the tye-dye mines.
What would throwing school vouchers at schools and hoping it increases competition do? Schools competing wouldn't lead to better education. You'd have mandatory SAT prep courses to make the schools numbers look better and stupid stuff like that. The current system allows for selection between public school anyhow, and it's not like private schools are better.
I should have said the dem party.
Right now, public education is a monopoly for those who can't afford private schools, which are almost always better. And if they're not, why are public schools so afraid of people being able to attend them?
School vouchers give parents the choice of schools, which means they will choose the best school they can, which means schools will strive to improve the education they provide. Basic market economics.
And besides, why is the dem party against parents choosing the best school for their children? Oh yeah, those teacher's unions again...
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
11-08-2006, 09:04
Webb is now up in Virginia by 11,000 votes. Looks like Virginia is going Democrat.
The last real race is in Montana. Last I saw, with 72% reporting, the Democrat was ahead by 7,000, but the Republican's supporters were saying many of the precincts that have not yet reported skew Republican.
If Montana goes Democrat, I'm pretty sure the Dem's have the senate too. But it's still too close to call.
Interesting. Montana isn't a big state, 7,000 is a sizeable gap.
Jon Tester (DEM) 5,172 68%
Conrad Burns (REP)* 2,277 30%
31% of precincts reporting
Also, that's promising.
The others aren't so good.
Jon Tester (DEM) 18,161 51%
Conrad Burns (REP)* 16,888 47%
43% of precincts reporting
Conrad Burns (REP)* 436 57%
Jon Tester (DEM) 311 40%
13% of precincts reporting
Conrad Burns (REP)* 10,180 57%
Jon Tester (DEM) 6,898 39%
71% of precincts reporting
Jon Tester (DEM) 8,530 49%
Conrad Burns (REP)* 8,400 49%
2% of precincts reporting
Conrad Burns (REP)* 582 60%
Jon Tester (DEM) 367 38%
19% of precincts reporting
Jon Tester (DEM) 2,503 57%
Conrad Burns (REP)* 1,801 41%
64% of precincts reporting
Jefferson
Conrad Burns (REP)* 2,347 57%
Jon Tester (DEM) 1,645 40%
43% of precincts reporting
Conrad Burns (REP)* 812 68%
Jon Tester (DEM) 363 30%
23% of precincts reporting
Sasaki Kojiro
11-08-2006, 09:07
I should have said the dem party.
Right now, public education is a monopoly for those who can't afford private schools, which are almost always better. And if they're not, why are public schools so afraid of people being able to attend them?
School vouchers give parents the choice of schools, which means they will choose the best school they can, which means schools will strive to improve the education they provide. Basic market economics.
And besides, why is the dem party against parents choosing the best school for their children? Oh yeah, those teacher's unions again...
CR
Maybe it's different where you live. Private schools don't offer a better education here and parents get to choose which public school.
Hurin_Rules
11-08-2006, 09:50
80% reporting, the democrat still leads in Montana by 5,500 votes. I've heard word, however, that the final results won't be make clear till 8am EST, as there has to be a recount in one county.
The majorities are so tiny that even a few people randomly ticking boxes as they vote could alter the outcome... I really wouldn't blame any particular person if your party lost. Blame the 5,000 idiots who had no idea who to vote for and randomly ticked a box.
doc_bean
11-08-2006, 11:00
The majorities are so tiny that even a few people randomly ticking boxes as they vote could alter the outcome... I really wouldn't blame any particular person if your party lost. Blame the 5,000 idiots who had no idea who to vote for and randomly ticked a box.
Why would those even take the time to vote ?
Why would those even take the time to vote ?
Nothing better to do? It's not that many people. I mean some of those margins are 0.1% of the population. That's one in a thousand.
Don Corleone
11-08-2006, 13:45
I went to be early last night, as I wasn't feeling all that well. I suppose I know what that was now...
I had seriously flirted with the idea of posting what Nancy Pelosi's real first 100 hours was going to look like, but I figure I'll be gracious and congratulate all you Dems.
I'll let you enjoy the day and tomorrow I'll post some of my predictions as to what I think is going to happen: the Good (yes, I think there will be some); the Bad (going to be plenty of that) and the Ugly (too much to count...).
Anyway, congratulations. And welcome back Hurin.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-08-2006, 14:02
Update:
Democrat control of the House, with a solid if not quite massive majority, is a done deal. The question will be whether Murtha tries to oust Pelosi, though I don't think he can.
Democrat control of the Senate, albeit on the basis of both independents voting with them, now seems likely. While Allen/Webb and Tester/Burns are both reporting wins for the Democrat candidate (though the margins are so close that recounts will be required).
As a whole, the American electorate is fed up with the GOP and wanted change.
-- some were fed up with the excesses of power (Foley, Abramoff)
-- some were fed up with the excesses in spending (Drug Bill, etc.)
-- some were fed up with the war in Iraq
The Democrats represent real differences on these issues. They do not hold power, so they are not in charge of managing a "culture of corruption." We shall see if they can do better. They do believe in lots of spending on domestic concerns, but under Clinton displayed a willingness to make cuts elsewhere to balance the budget -- whereas these Republicans haven't spent a nickel where they could toss in a sawbuck. They do not approve of our efforts in Iraq, and wish us to begin leaving -- they are aware that chaos will result, but feel deeply that this will occur regardless of how many Americans die or how long we stay, so we might as well get it over with. This view of Iraq is shared by a plurality -- and perhaps a majority -- of Americans.
My concerns for the future, based on this, center around three things.
WoT/Iraq: I'm not happy with how we're doing, but would prefer a more committed effort to succeed rather than a withdrawal. I hate it, but accept the fact that sometimes you have to bleed -- and go on bleeding -- to enact policy. If you aren't willing to do so, you become a feckless ally and paper tiger.
Spending: We are currently at war, which makes it difficult to slash defense budget growth (the primary means of budget balancing used by Clinton), but will have a Congressional leadership committed to social spending and income redistribution sending bills to a President who can't seem to remember where he put his article 2 section 7 stamp.
The Border/Immigration: I simply do not see meaningful action here. This was, regrettably, true under the GOP, but will not improve under new management. Oh well, at least the Dems were up front about wanting amnesty and citizenship for all.
macsen rufus
11-08-2006, 14:03
http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/COVER/061107/STG_MEGA_Pelosi_858p.jpg
I don't know who on earth she is, but she LOOKS scary.....
I don't know who on earth she is, but she LOOKS scary.....
Well atleast she looks better then Condoleezza Rice does.:hide:
Major Robert Dump
11-08-2006, 15:19
I defend Pelosis and Murthas stupid ideas no more than you Republicans defend Bushs. Did you see her choices for committees? Good god, she's going to make the head of the senate intelligence committee one of the only judges to ever be impeached, the guys a felon for chrissakes. He coudln't even get a "secret" clearance if he joined the army
KukriKhan
11-08-2006, 15:26
The majorities are so tiny that even a few people randomly ticking boxes as they vote could alter the outcome... I really wouldn't blame any particular person if your party lost. Blame the 5,000 idiots who had no idea who to vote for and randomly ticked a box.
I had 2 of those guys - one on either side of me - last night at the Poll. Absolutely unprepared, totally befuddled by touch-screen machines, and obviously ignorant of any need for anonymity. Both left their machines and walked over to mine to ask for help.
I wanted to punch them; instead called a poll worker over. Geez...my fellow citizens.
Don Corleone
11-08-2006, 15:53
I defend Pelosis and Murthas stupid ideas no more than you Republicans defend Bushs. Did you see her choices for committees? Good god, she's going to make the head of the senate intelligence committee one of the only judges to ever be impeached, the guys a felon for chrissakes. He coudln't even get a "secret" clearance if he joined the army
As House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi would have absolutely nothing to say about who the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee is. That will be up to the Senate Majority leader, most likely Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden.
Edit: Technically speaking, Harry Reid (current Minority Leader) should be the next Senate Majority Leader, except Dems are pretty pissed at him, and I'm not certain they'll back him as Majority Leader, hence my listing of Biden & Kennedy.
Don Corleone
11-08-2006, 16:01
Okay, of all the Democratic victories yesterday, one that I actually wanted to see but didn't was Harald Ford Jr in Tennessee. The reason I opposed Bob Corker was this vile piece of filth (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWkrwENN5CQ&eurl). It's disgusting. The guns, the terrorists etcetera... sure I suppose it's fair game. But the girl at the end? That is blatant racism... elect a black guy and he'll take all the white women. And the stupid hicks in Tennessee played along and voted against him. Don Imus was right this morning. Bob Corker may not be awful, but nobody in Tennessee thought he was better than Harald Ford Jr. (a very conservative Democrat, by the by). I had hoped we had moved beyond all this, but sadly, :no: I would have hoped that I could have said if we were going to lose, we could have at least lost with style. Sadly, we lost, and in doing so, Republicans managed to lose their dignity at the same time.
Well, one positive side to the election... Ken Mehlmann (RNC chairman) and his cronies will be shown the door. They're not conservatives, they're the lobby for graft.
macsen rufus
11-08-2006, 16:08
Look on the bright side.... well the statistical side. If these 5000 are voting truly randomly that's 2500 each way, cancelling each other out. It's only where you have a third choice things get interesting .... 1,666 each for Reps, Dems and the token fruit-bat alternative, raising the fruit-bat vote to a grand total of 1,667 :clown:
Kukri - you missed a chance to say "Look, press this button HERE" (although this would clearly offend your honest approach to democracy :bow:)
More post-election polling info (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2006/2006-11-08-cover-usat_x.htm):
Corruption was the top-ranked issue: 41% called it "extremely important." Six in 10 of those voters favored Democrats. Republicans lost the Florida district that had been represented by Mark Foley, who resigned in the wake of the congressional-page scandal. In Pennsylvania, Rep. Don Sherwood, accused by his former mistress of trying to strangle her, lost, too.
Terrorism, rated "extremely important" by 39%, worked to Republicans' advantage, but by just 7 points — not the slam-dunk that the White House envisioned. Bush repeatedly argued during the campaign that Democrats couldn't be trusted to keep the nation safe. On Tuesday, 29% of voters said that Republicans alone could protect the country from terrorism — only somewhat more than the 22% who said only the Democrats could.
In the end, views on the Iraq war correlated most closely with how people voted; 36% called the issue "extremely important." Eight in 10 of those who opposed the war voted for Democrats; eight in 10 of those who supported the war voted for Republicans.
Well atleast she looks better then Condoleezza Rice does.:hide:
Codoleezza is HOT~:pimp:
Take your pick, gents:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/pelosi.jpg https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/b7b253776c384aaa86545db93201e4b3_ri.jpg
I promised her dinner if her party lost by one vote.
You may have to make good on that promise. You're in VA, right?
[edit]
Turns out the G.O.P. loss was all McCain's fault! Who knew (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/dc3a68c3-2554-4e89-a2cb-be5a0e18fbe8)?
Handed a large majority, the GOP frittered it away. The chief fritterer was Senator McCain and his Gang of 14 and Kennedy-McCain immigration bill, supplemented by a last minute throw down that prevented the NSA bill from progressing or the key judicial nominations from receiving a vote. His accomplice in that master stroke was Senator Graham. Together they cost their friend Mike DeWine his seat in the Senate, and all their Republican colleagues their chairmanships. Senator McCain should rethink his presidential run. Amid the ruins of the GOP's majority there is a clear culprit.
[snip]
Senator Santorum is now available for a seat on the SCOTUS should one become available.
[edit of the edit]
And then there's The Onion's take (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55018):
Republicans Blame Election Losses On Democrats
WASHINGTON, DC—Republican officials are blaming tonight's GOP losses on Democrats, who they claim have engaged in a wide variety of "aggressive, premeditated, anti-Republican campaigns" over the past six-to-18 months. "We have evidence of a well-organized, well-funded series of operations designed specifically to undermine our message, depict our past performance in a negative light, and drive Republicans out of office," said Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, who accused an organization called the Democratic National Committee of spearheading the nationwide effort. "There are reports of television spots, print ads, even volunteers going door-to-door encouraging citizens to vote against us." Acknowledging that the "damage has already been done," Mehlman is seeking a promise from Democrats to never again engage in similar practices.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-08-2006, 17:45
I had 2 of those guys - one on either side of me - last night at the Poll. Absolutely unprepared, totally befuddled by touch-screen machines, and obviously ignorant of any need for anonymity. Both left their machines and walked over to mine to ask for help.
I wanted to punch them; instead called a poll worker over. Geez...my fellow citizens.
I heard that in Oregon the people voted for new campaign finance reform laws by a margin of 55-45, while voting against the constitutional amendment that would allow those laws to take effect.
macsen rufus
11-08-2006, 18:24
Take your pick, gents:
AAGH! Lemur, you gave me the sort of shock I normally only get from Lars in the babe thread :pimp:
Seamus Fermanagh
11-08-2006, 18:30
AAGH! Lemur, you gave me the sort of shock I normally only get from Lars in the babe thread :pimp:
I like his Babe Thread posts, its his Backroom stance that makes my mind wobble.
Are you saying you don't like popsickle-licking twins and Islamists-Versus-Pirate threads?
Sir Moody
11-08-2006, 18:44
Republicans Blame Election Losses On Democrats
WASHINGTON, DC—Republican officials are blaming tonight's GOP losses on Democrats, who they claim have engaged in a wide variety of "aggressive, premeditated, anti-Republican campaigns" over the past six-to-18 months. "We have evidence of a well-organized, well-funded series of operations designed specifically to undermine our message, depict our past performance in a negative light, and drive Republicans out of office," said Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, who accused an organization called the Democratic National Committee of spearheading the nationwide effort. "There are reports of television spots, print ads, even volunteers going door-to-door encouraging citizens to vote against us." Acknowledging that the "damage has already been done," Mehlman is seeking a promise from Democrats to never again engage in similar practices.
:2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:
trust the onion to make me smile thanks Lemur
Sasaki Kojiro
11-08-2006, 18:52
Montana ~:cheers:
macsen rufus
11-08-2006, 18:53
Can anyone explain in a broad-brush way for non-Americans what this result means - ie not going into detail of the personalities, but the broad implications of the two houses being controlled by a different party from the White House etc? Does the USA grind to a halt until the next Presidential election? Does legislation halt / go into reverse / explode? Will foreign policy change?
Okay, that's the token intelligent question, now babe thread posts, I'm afraid Lars focusses too much on the wobble for my taste. But as a Brit I shouldn't really slate Pelosi and Rice when we have Widdicombe, Curry, Short et al to scare naughty little boys with.... shudder :skull: :skull: :skull:
Sasaki Kojiro
11-08-2006, 18:55
Bush will have to compromise with the dems if he wants to get anything done.
Can anyone explain in a broad-brush way for non-Americans what this result means - ie not going into detail of the personalities, but the broad implications of the two houses being controlled by a different party from the White House etc? Does the USA grind to a halt until the next Presidential election? Does legislation halt / go into reverse / explode? Will foreign policy change?
Okay, that's the token intelligent question, now babe thread posts, I'm afraid Lars focusses too much on the wobble for my taste. But as a Brit I shouldn't really slate Pelosi and Rice when we have Widdicombe, Curry, Short et al to scare naughty little boys with.... shudder :skull: :skull: :skull:
Well the for legislature to pass it has to get an apporving 1/2 majority vote for both the house and senate. The president, can then veto whatever legislature comes his way for final approval. The bill then goes back to the Senate where it has to recieve a 2/3 vote to override the veto.
One of two things could happen. The democrats could throw a bunch of legislature at Bush and he could veto every single piece not getting much done in his last years as president, or he could compromise with the house/senate.
Don Corleone
11-08-2006, 19:06
Did they call Montana for Talent? I just went to CNN and didn't see anything about it.
Don Corleone
11-08-2006, 19:06
Edit: Oops, duplicate post.
Mascen, pretty much what's been said before. Having Congress & the White House at odds tends to bring about gridlock (the benevolent kind so favored by Lemur, and the not so good kind, such as when Newt Gingrich locked all federal employees out of their offices because they couldn't compromise on a spending bill).
Generally speaking, American voters will punish either/both sides if they're perceived as being too obstructionist. If Bush says "You know, anything Nancy & Harry send my way is gonna get a veto", you can bet the farm on a Democratic president in 2 years. Likewise, if the Senate stops approving any and every nomination (the moderates AND the conservatives) and pass spending bills, they Congressional majority of Dems will last exactly 2 years.
I'm going to go way out on a limb here. Right here, I'm going to take a pledge to embrace the Democratic Congress and not blanketly dismiss them out of hand. I may criticize some of their stances, but for the next 2 years, I'm going to try as hard as I can to give the Socialist side of the street a chance and see where that gets us. I cannot choke down Universal Healthcare, as it would be disastrous for our medical infrastructure, but affordable insurance for everyone ok. Open border with Mexico, okay. I'll give the Democratic agenda a chance, try to allow as much of the 6 For 2006 a chance. Who knows, I just might learn something. Call me Mr. 5 1/2 for 2006. I'll still take exception when policy is debated, but once you guys have the votes and put it up and get it on the books, mum's the word. Sasaki, Lemur and all you other Dems, feel free to call me on it when I stray from the path.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-08-2006, 19:11
Did they call Montana for Talent? I just went to CNN and didn't see anything about it.
Yes.
Also, Drapes, lol.
Yup, looks like folks are calling Montana (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_el_se/eln_montana_senate) for Tester. I guess his opponent had a little problem:
"Burns was a top recipient of campaign contributions from Abramoff, who pleaded guilty in January to corruption. Burns has since returned or donated about $150,000, and has maintained he did nothing wrong and was never influenced by Abramoff."
Sasaki Kojiro
11-08-2006, 19:15
I like how Bush is all "I've always supported bipartisanship" the day after losing control of congress.
Don Corleone
11-08-2006, 19:18
"Burns had some of his own gaffes, beyond the Abrahmhoff scandall, including a incident where he cursed at firefighters". :dizzy2:
Well, I suppose it would be too much to expect Jim Allen to do the honorable thing and concede now, to save us from a 3rd election decided in the courts. Unfortunately, he's the wrong man for that particular job. I'm afraid we won't know who the majority leader is for another month and a half now...:shame:
Post-election uncertainty has sort of become our theme in the last decade. I was expecting it this time. The shocker (for the lemur) will be if it's only one election that isn't resolved until mid-December.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-08-2006, 19:42
"Burns had some of his own gaffes, beyond the Abrahmhoff scandall, including a incident where he cursed at firefighters". :dizzy2:
Well, I suppose it would be too much to expect Jim Allen to do the honorable thing and concede now, to save us from a 3rd election decided in the courts. Unfortunately, he's the wrong man for that particular job. I'm afraid we won't know who the majority leader is for another month and a half now...:shame:
I'm hopeful that he'll just do the expected re-count and then call it a day.
The likelihood of him having any aspirations after this loss is almost nil, after all, so he has a vested interest in making sure the count was correct.
Note: Webb's win would probably have been a notch BIGGER without a marriage protection ammendment on the ballot.
Bush will have to compromise with the dems if he wants to get anything done.
Which in effect means that, given the current political landscape, nothing is going to get done.
I'm going to go way out on a limb here. Right here, I'm going to take a pledge to embrace the Democratic Congress and not blanketly dismiss them out of hand. I may criticize some of their stances, but for the next 2 years, I'm going to try as hard as I can to give the Socialist side of the street a chance and see where that gets us. I cannot choke down Universal Healthcare, as it would be disastrous for our medical infrastructure, but affordable insurance for everyone ok. Open border with Mexico, okay. I'll give the Democratic agenda a chance, try to allow as much of the 6 For 2006 a chance. Who knows, I just might learn something. Call me Mr. 5 1/2 for 2006. I'll still take exception when policy is debated, but once you guys have the votes and put it up and get it on the books, mum's the word. Sasaki, Lemur and all you other Dems, feel free to call me on it when I stray from the path.
Well I think you're nuts for doing so. When the Republicans controlled the executive & legislative branches most of us who are moderate to right leaning expected a little bit more than tax cuts and Supreme Court nominations. What we wound up with was a party that became drunk with power and ran contrary to its core ideologies on the serious issues. Seriously now, that 20th century Democrat tribute band called the Neo-Cons really screwed the pooch in Iraq. And yet despite the shock of being dragged into a geopolitically inspired strategy of nation building in Iraq the Republican constituency still expected their elected officials would address illegal immigration, privatize social security and generally slash and burn government down to size. But what did those elected representatives do? Give birth to the wonder twins known as Jack and Squat. To expect anything more from the Democrats simply flies in the face of common sense and to be brutally honest, smacks of desperation tempered with prescription medication induced fantasy.
Let's pray modern science has an answer to our problems because it's painfully clear most of these post-war generation politicians only know how to get themselves elected and milk the system like its the last teat left in the last dairy farm on the face of the Earth. I firmly believe that a pack of genetically engineered rhesus monkeys with brains the size of watermelons could do a better job of running the country than the current generation of self-absorbed fools and fops. In the very least the monkeys would be more entertaining when they screw up...
I haven't the slightest bit of optimism for the future, the road ahead seems so bleak I feel like I'm stuck in some post-war German art film.
But hey, three cheers to gridlock! ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers:
But hey, three cheers to gridlock! ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers:
Now you're talking sense!
Hurin_Rules
11-08-2006, 21:32
It will be interesting to see if Bush can switch gears and lead a bipartisan government.
While I dislike Bush intensely, don't put this past him. When he was in Texas, as I understand it, he was indeed a bipartisan figure, and worked exceptionally well with the democratic assembly. Mostly because he had to, sure-- but he has it in him to really be a uniter, not a divider, as he so often claimed to be.
In the spirit of Don's embrace of the democratic congress, i'm going to give Bush a second chance. I just hope there's not too much water under the bridge, because America has some serious problems to solve.
Proletariat
11-09-2006, 00:03
Well I think you're nuts for doing so. When the Republicans controlled the executive & legislative branches most of us who are moderate to right leaning expected a little bit more than tax cuts and Supreme Court nominations. What we wound up with was a party that became drunk with power and ran contrary to its core ideologies on the serious issues. Seriously now, that 20th century Democrat tribute band called the Neo-Cons really screwed the pooch in Iraq. And yet despite the shock of being dragged into a geopolitically inspired strategy of nation building in Iraq the Republican constituency still expected their elected officials would address illegal immigration, privatize social security and generally slash and burn government down to size. But what did those elected representatives do? Give birth to the wonder twins known as Jack and Squat. To expect anything more from the Democrats simply flies in the face of common sense and to be brutally honest, smacks of desperation tempered with prescription medication induced fantasy.
Just beautiful.
:iloveyou:
Gawain of Orkeny
11-09-2006, 00:22
When all is said and done this election is still a victory for conservatives. The only way the Dems pulled this off was by running conservative candidates. Now we have Rinos and Dinos running everything.
Major Robert Dump
11-09-2006, 01:15
As House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi would have absolutely nothing to say about who the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee is. That will be up to the Senate Majority leader, most likely Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden.
Edit: Technically speaking, Harry Reid (current Minority Leader) should be the next Senate Majority Leader, except Dems are pretty pissed at him, and I'm not certain they'll back him as Majority Leader, hence my listing of Biden & Kennedy.
That was a mistype on my part, I didnt mean the Senate Committee I meant the committee on Intelligence
I can't see what difference this election will make tbh. Different personnel, different style, different emphasis - identical corporate agenda. Same sh&t different day as far as I can tell.
Gawain of Orkeny
11-09-2006, 02:08
Fior once I agree with Idaho. I think Pelosi will be fun to watch however.
Major Robert Dump
11-09-2006, 02:37
I don't think she will have it as easy as everyone thinks, there are plenty of Dixiecrats in the House and Senate and quite frankly her ascension to speaker would be a mix of seniority and the novelty of having a woman. You never want the far most fringe to be the speaker.
Now, assuming Webb wins when all those navy absentee ballots come in :smash: who is gonna be Senate Majority Leader? I don't think Ted Kennedy would be up fpr the job, thats more crap than he wants to deal with (thank god) and Clinton hasn't been a Senator long enough too be considered a real candidate (thank god again).
Gawain of Orkeny
11-09-2006, 02:44
I don't think she will have it as easy as everyone thinks
I think it will be easy for Rush Limbaugh and his ilk to use her as ammo. Thats what Im speaking about. Not as much fun as Clinton but at least shes the biggest democrat target hes had in years.
Cowhead418
11-09-2006, 03:25
I'm not really a Republican, but I absolutely abhor the Democratic party. If the Democrats win in the 2008 election (please... ANYBODY but Clinton) and keep control of the Senate, then I fear a Nanny State will emerge.:no:
I think it will be easy for Rush Limbaugh and his ilk to use her as ammo.
A Democrat, a Californian, and (most importantly) a woman. He should have a fine old time.
Don Corleone
11-09-2006, 04:08
After 6 years of playing apologist for the Republican excesses up in DC, Rush has lost credibility and doesn't hold anywhere near the sway he once did. There's a big difference between a "c"onservative and a partisan Republican. Rush has forgotten that, and in doing so, has become nothing but a shill. Let him whine about Nancy Pelosi, his show has turned into a demented Romper Room.
Spino thought I'd lost my mind when I said I was going to try to be an optimist about the next 2 years. Well, personally, I had to. It was my only option. I have to believe in something. The Republicans spent 40 years waiting to get both houses and the presidency back at the same time. They could have done a lot of good in the 4 years they've had. But instead, they laid down with swine like Abrahmoff and did nothing to actually reform government or Washington. So either I pray and hope conservative Democrats can do the job, or I abandon all hope and prepare Jillian for life as a slave to the political overclass.
I'm starting to think Chile doesn't doesn't look so bad.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-09-2006, 04:13
After 6 years of playing apologist for the Republican excesses up in DC, Rush has lost credibility and doesn't hold anywhere near the sway he once did. There's a big difference between a "c"onservative and a partisan Republican. Rush has forgotten that, and in doing so, has become nothing but a shill. Let him whine about Nancy Pelosi, his show has turned into a demented Romper Room.
Spino thought I'd lost my mind when I said I was going to try to be an optimist about the next 2 years. Well, personally, I had to. It was my only option. I have to believe in something. The Republicans spent 40 years waiting to get both houses and the presidency back at the same time. They could have done a lot of good in the 4 years they've had. But instead, they laid down with swine like Abrahmoff and did nothing to actually reform government or Washington. So either I pray and hope conservative Democrats can do the job, or I abandon all hope and prepare Jillian for life as a slave to the political overclass.
I'm starting to think Chile doesn't doesn't look so bad.
Actually, this piece by Rush after the elections is the first intelligent thing I've heard him say:
Now, I mentioned to you at the conclusion of the previous hour that people having been asking me how I feel all night long. I got, "Boy, Rush, I wouldn't want to be you tomorrow! Boy, I wouldn't want to have to do your show! Oh-ho. I'm so glad I'm not you." Well, folks, I love being me. (I can't be anybody else, so I'm stuck with it.) The way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, "Well, why have you been doing it?" Because the stakes are high! Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat Party and liberalism does.
I believe my side is worthy of victory, and I believe it's much easier to reform things that are going wrong on my side from a position of strength. Now I'm liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don't deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don't deserve it. I did not want to sit here and participate, willingly, in the victory of the libs, in the victory of the Democrat Party by sabotaging my own. But now with what has happened yesterday and today, it is an entirely liberating thing. If those in our party who are going to carry the day in the future -- both in Congress and the administration -- are going to choose a different path than what most of us believe, then that's liberating. I don't say this with any animosity about anybody, and I don't mean to make this too personal.
I'm not trying to tell you that this is about me. I'm just answering questions that I've had from people about how I feel. There have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves -- and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs. I'm a radio guy! I understand what this program has become in America and I understand the leadership position it has. I was doing what I thought best, but at this point, people who don't deserve to have their water carried, or have themselves explained as they would like to say things but somehow aren't able to? I'm not under that kind of pressure. Am I making myself clear on this, Mr. Snerdley? (interruption)
No, I'm not lying. Snerdley's concerned. I've not lied about anything I've said. Let me try this a different way. (sigh) I'm going to have to think about this. I tried to make it as clear as I can. I'm not going to eat my own, and I'm not going to throw my own overboard, particularly in a campaign, and particularly when the country is at war -- and I'm not going to do it for selfish reasons, and I'm not going to do it to stand out, and I'm not going to do it to be different. I'm not going to do it to draw attention from our enemies. I'm not going to do anything I do so that the Drive-By Media will like me or think that, "Ooooh, Limbaugh has changed! Ooooh, Limbaugh is coming around!" That's not my thinking. My thinking is: the left doesn't deserve to win. My thinking is: the country is imperiled with liberal victory. We may not have the best people on our side, but they're better than what we have on the left.
But it has been difficult sometimes, when these people on our side have not had the guts to stand up for themselves, have not had the guts to explain what they really believe and why they're doing what they're doing. When they haven't had the courage to be who they are, when they haven't had the courage to be conservatives. It has been a challenge to come in here and look at some of the weaknesses and some of the missed opportunities and try to cover for them and make up for them and make sure that the opportunities are not totally lost. But at some point you have to say, "I'm not them, and I can't assume the responsibility for their success. It isn't my job to make them succeed. It isn't my job to make elected Republicans look good if they can't do it themselves. It's not my job to make them understandable and understood if they can't do it themselves -- not in perpetuity, not ad infinitum." So all I can tell you is I feel a little liberated, and I think this is all going to result in a lot of cleansing in a number of areas.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Snerdley said, "Well give me an example of what you're talking about." Okay, let me give you an example. (I'm not going to mention any names.) I've been sticking my neck out to defend people who won't defend themselves and in the process of sticking my neck out, I get it cut off by other people who disavow what I'm doing and saying -- and yet if I didn't stick my neck out these people would have gotten swamped and defeated by far bigger margins than they did! I bring a lot of passion to my belief in conservatism, and my belief that liberalism is harmful to individuals in this country, that it leads them to lives of misery and unfulfilled potential. Those beliefs drive me, and I believe that we are the good guys, and when the people on my side, the good guys, don't have the guts to defend themselves as strongly as I'm willing to defend them, then you get to the point where, what's the point? I'm not running in their races. I'm not asking for votes. I'm not on the ballots. I'm not getting their votes. That is up to them. So it's a little liberating. All I'm saying is it's a little liberating now, once I see the direction we're headed and I look at the reaction to everybody in our movement after this loss. They can take it the way they want to take it, and I'm not going to defend whatever way they go just because they're on my side if I don't believe in the method they're using or the direction they're taking. It's that simple. Now, back to the phones. Thomas in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, nice to have you, and I appreciate your patience. Welcome.
Don Corleone
11-09-2006, 04:15
I quit listening to him. Too little, too late.
And you'll be interested to hear that CNN has announced Virginia is going to certify Webb without a recount. 51-49. Game, set, match.
Rush is a commentator. He's supposed to believe what he's selling. He just admitted that he's been lying to the public for 6 years. Yeah, somebody we should listen to....Like I said, he's a shill. If the Republicans had held on last night, he'd be going on about what a great, moral victory it all was.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-09-2006, 04:21
Democrats Take Control of the Senate
Nov 08 8:45 PM US/Eastern
By LIZ SIDOTI and BOB LEWIS
Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON
Democrats wrested control of the Senate from Republicans Wednesday with an upset victory in Virginia, giving the party complete domination of Capitol Hill for the first time since 1994.
Jim Webb's squeaker win over incumbent Sen. George Allen gave Democrats their 51st seat in the Senate, an astonishing turnabout at the hands of voters unhappy with Republican scandal and unabated violence in Iraq. Allen was the sixth Republican incumbent senator defeated in Tuesday's elections.
The Senate had teetered at 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans for most of Wednesday, with Virginia hanging in the balance. Webb's victory ended Republican hopes of eking out a 50-50 split, with Vice President Dick Cheney wielding tie-breaking authority.
The Associated Press contacted election officials in all 134 localities where voting occurred, obtaining updated numbers Wednesday. About half the localities said they had completed their postelection canvassing and nearly all had counted outstanding absentees. Most were expected to be finished by Friday.
The new AP count showed Webb with 1,172,538 votes and Allen with 1,165,302, a difference of 7,236. Virginia has had two statewide vote recounts in modern history, but both resulted in vote changes of no more than a few hundred votes.
An adviser to Allen, speaking on condition of anonymity because his boss had not formally decided to end the campaign, said the senator wanted to wait until most of canvassing was completed before announcing his decision, possibly as early as Thursday evening.
The adviser said that Allen was disinclined to request a recount if the final vote spread was similar to that of election night.
The victory puts Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., in line to become Senate majority leader. He has led the Democrats since Tom Daschle, D-S.D., was defeated two years
Yay! Also, it looks like there won't even be a recount.
Major Robert Dump
11-09-2006, 04:35
Maybe Allen can drop a deer head in Webb's mailbox and sue. The only reason it was even as close as it was, was because of Allens shameful attack on Webbs writings in an attempt to sway the Harry-potter-is-teh-devil crowd. It almost worked.
There were plenty of races won by Republicans on a margin as small as Webb vs Allen, but no one is crying for a recount there, its just not needed.
Don Corleone
11-09-2006, 04:40
Allen's staff has leaked he's going to announce tomorrow night, unless he sees something in the canvassing of districts tomorrow that he didn't see today. No lawsuits this time.
macsen rufus
11-09-2006, 11:30
@ Don: thanks for your explanation of the system... I'll stand back now and watch the fireworks :beam:
Goofball
11-09-2006, 20:30
I think it will be easy for Rush Limbaugh and his ilk to use her as ammo. Thats what Im speaking about. Not as much fun as Clinton but at least shes the biggest democrat target hes had in years.
And that's a good thing for Rush. His wit is not sharp enough to hit anything but the easiest of targets.
Goofball
11-09-2006, 22:07
OT:
What I like best about the election results is that Joe Lieberman is now one of the most powerful men in American politics, and doesn't have to toe either party line.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-09-2006, 22:10
I don't see how that works. Surely any one of the democrats has the same power.
Goofball
11-09-2006, 22:16
I don't see how that works. Surely any one of the democrats has the same power.
Pressure can be brought to bear on Democrats to vote along party lines. The same can't be said of Lieberman. He and the other independent will be the "deciders."
Sasaki Kojiro
11-09-2006, 22:16
They can still pressure him. Didn't he say he was running as democrat next time?
Goofball
11-09-2006, 22:24
They can still pressure him. Didn't he say he was running as democrat next time?
I hadn't seen that comment. But I still maintain that he has more freedom to do what he wants than elected Democrats will. If nothing else, Connecticut stands to benefit greatly if he chooses to use his power for evil (pork sandwich, anyone?). The Republicans are making friendly overtures to him as we speak, while the Dems are praying he'll allow bygones to be bygones.
Lieberman can be pressured, but since they left him swinging in the breeze for the primary, maybe he won't feel the urge to comply.
The thing I'm confused about is how this makes the Democrats the majority party? Isn't it 49-49-2 (or do I have my count wrong)? Even if the 2 independents are going to side with the Dems most of the time, technically neither party is in the majority.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-09-2006, 22:41
Well, the one independent is very liberal, and lieberman originally ran as a democrat, so it's essentially 51-49
Don Corleone
11-09-2006, 22:44
To establish who the majority party is, the Senate holds a caucus, not a straight vote. That means Lieberman and the Marxist guy have to pick one of the top two winners after they've been relegated to a 3rd or 4th place finish (assuming they're troublemaking enough to do that, because then it will take 2 votes instead of 1). Lieberman and the Marxist guy could caucus with the Republicans, but I think it's a pipe dream to imagine they would. 'Jumpin' Jim Jeffords got relegated to being a footnote after his big switch... the Democrats cast him aside once they got what they wanted out of him and the Republicans never forgave him. Lieberman will caucus with the Dems, even if they don't offer any peace overtures (which I'm pretty sure they will). I do think it's going to a hoot watching Ole Flip Flop explain to Joe that he was really on his side, even though he campaigned for Lamont BEFORE Lamont won the primary.
Ah, thanks for the info. :bow:
Gawain of Orkeny
11-10-2006, 03:15
Lieberman and the Marxist guy could caucus with the Republicans, but I think it's a pipe dream to imagine they would. 'Jumpin' Jim Jeffords got relegated to being a footnote after his big switch... the Democrats cast him aside once they got what they wanted out of him and the Republicans never forgave him. Lieberman will caucus with the Dems, even if they don't offer any peace overtures
But imagine if he pulled a 'Jumpin' Jim Jeffords on them? We could have 'Leapin Joe Lieberman' :beam:
So does this mean that the economy will finally start getting good play in the news media?
King of Atlantis
11-10-2006, 04:16
Take your pick, gents:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/pelosi.jpg https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/b7b253776c384aaa86545db93201e4b3_ri.jpg
ah come on, Pelosi actually looks suprisingly well for someone in their sixties. And lets be mature guys, im not saying I have the hots for her, you well know what i mean. Anyone in a poss like that would look weird.
I understand joking around, but seriously..
But imagine if he pulled a 'Jumpin' Jim Jeffords on them? We could have 'Leapin Joe Lieberman' :beam:
You'll see Snowe and Collins from Maine, two of the most moderate Republicans left in Congress now, jump to the Democrat side of the aisle before you see Lieberman or Sanders caucus with the Republicans.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.