|
Post by bazbear on Nov 16, 2006 2:41:19 GMT -4
The reactions of the GOP/conservatives with their current loss as compared to the reaction of the Democrats/liberals with their loss in 2000 or 2004 are night and day. I predicted earlier that we might not know until December if the Senate would be controlled by the Republicans or Democrats - well if it had been a Democrat who had lost we wouldn't, because he would have demanded recounts. The Republican candidates in Montana and Virginia, on the other hand, showed the class to step aside rather than strike another blow against the credibility of the US electoral system. That sure sounds like you're assuming no one in the Donkey party learned a damned thing in the 2000 election(and to a much lesser extent, messing around about the Ohio returns two years ago)...as well as a few other lesser races. Anyone who rolls those dice is a fool. Unless we're talking a couple scores of votes, it's political suicide.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 16, 2006 11:58:55 GMT -4
And of course the corollary to the hope for change, after a great musical interlude and the best scream in rock and roll: “Meet the new boss, the same as the old boss.” Alas, too true. But I've always preferred when at least one house of congress isn't of the party of the chief executive. It seems to cut down on the "go along to get along" factor. Well it could hardly get worse than the status quo. Republicans seem to be more effective at being Republicans when they are in the minority. I wonder how they will feel about Senate filibuster rules now?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 16, 2006 14:25:04 GMT -4
Republicans seem to be more effective at being Republicans when they are in the minority. Unfortunately that seems to be true. The power of being in the majority seems to have gone to their heads. If they had shown some backbone and carried out the change in Judicial appointment rules maybe they would still be the majority party.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 16, 2006 17:45:44 GMT -4
Republicans seem to be more effective at being Republicans when they are in the minority. Unfortunately that seems to be true. The power of being in the majority seems to have gone to their heads. When out of power they talk about reducing government , but once in power they become demi Democrats policy wise. Expanding the government reach, but in areas of interest to their constituencies, but maybe not so much. Well those that want reduced government can’t vote for them and those that want expanded government prefer the more forthright Democrats. So the Ds get back in office. A hex on both their houses I say.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 16, 2006 18:59:10 GMT -4
You pretty much nailed it on the head. If we wanted big government we would have voted Democratic in the first place.
The line from Romeo and Juliet is "a plague o' both your houses," but I guess hex serves too.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 16, 2006 19:05:46 GMT -4
I like the alteration.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 16, 2006 19:29:29 GMT -4
The reactions of the GOP/conservatives with their current loss as compared to the reaction of the Democrats/liberals with their loss in 2000 or 2004 are night and day. I predicted earlier that we might not know until December if the Senate would be controlled by the Republicans or Democrats - well if it had been a Democrat who had lost we wouldn't, because he would have demanded recounts. The Republican candidates in Montana and Virginia, on the other hand, showed the class to step aside rather than strike another blow against the credibility of the US electoral system. That sure sounds like you're assuming no one in the Donkey party learned a damned thing in the 2000 election(and to a much lesser extent, messing around about the Ohio returns two years ago)...as well as a few other lesser races. Anyone who rolls those dice is a fool. Unless we're talking a couple scores of votes, it's political suicide. Heh. It also proves you didn't hear about our gubenatorial race in Washington two years ago. Both sides demanded recounts, and the Republican candidate actually demanded a new election. Which, of course, he didn't get. In point of fact, I have no problem with recounts no matter which side wants one. In some locations, in fact, a narrow enough margin means an automatic recount; no call for one is necessary, and I like that fact. I'd rather be sure, no matter how many counts it's taken. And the Democrats wouldn't've needed recounts in Florida were it not for the more obvious voter fraud (like trying to steer black voters away from the polls by telling them the wrong date--granted, you have to be kind of stupid to fall for it, but they tried, and that's only one example).
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Nov 16, 2006 21:36:43 GMT -4
The reactions of the GOP/conservatives with their current loss as compared to the reaction of the Democrats/liberals with their loss in 2000 or 2004 are night and day. I predicted earlier that we might not know until December if the Senate would be controlled by the Republicans or Democrats - well if it had been a Democrat who had lost we wouldn't, because he would have demanded recounts. The Republican candidates in Montana and Virginia, on the other hand, showed the class to step aside rather than strike another blow against the credibility of the US electoral system. Unlike the Democrats in 2000 and 2004 the GOP had no reason to doubt the results: -Diebold and the other voting machine companies are owned by Republicans. -Montana’s Secretary of State is a Republican. -There weren’t any discrepancies between exit poll results and vote counts. -Although Montana and Virginia have Democratic governors and the latter has a Democratic Secretary of State I’ve not heard any indication they used there office to benefit their party. -Neither state had problematic ballots (yes designed by Democrats). -I might have missed it being out of the US but I don’t remember Kerry or any other defeated Democrats challenging election results. Oh yes the Republicans are real classy they put lying and deceiving in a class by itself. The Downing St. Memo indicates that: - the Bush administration had already decided to invade Iraq in July 2002 while they claimed to only have made the decision in March 2003. - The director of MI6 (Britain’s CIA) believed that (as paraphrased by the author of the memo) Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. Another leaked memo from Blair’s office indicated that Bush proposed trying to provoke the Iraqis to shooting down a USAF U2 painted in UN colors as a pretext for war. They feel justified in lying in order to gain votes. I posted the text below in another forum. The University of Pennsylvania’s journalism school concluded that National Republican Campaign Committee consistently resorted to deceptive and factually incorrect attack ads. www.factcheck.org/article460.htmlIn one of those ads they alleged that a Democratic candidate billed a call to a phone sex line to taxpayers. The truth which even the Republican’s don’t dispute is that he or an aide accidentally dialed the wrong number the 1st brief call was immediately followed by a longer one to the same number in a different area code. See the ad here and watch Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY), chairman of the NRCC, defend such tactics. www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8JDRiwoiZw Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) said of the White House / GOP intentional distortion of Kerry's “stuck in Iraq” remark: "A fundamental premise of politics is: We can make this work if people just never figure it out." and "Well, it's pretty standard fare in political discourse. You misconstrue what somebody said. You isolate a statement, you lend your interpretation to it and then feign moral outrage." www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0LmTkAiJ9MIn other words leading Republicans think it’s OK to lie to achieve your political objectives and aren’t ashamed to admit it. This however had gotten very little play in the supposedly “liberal media”. It is interesting to note that when a Democrat (Kerry) flubed a line (stuck in Iraq) the media did very little to make it clear he (as even Armey admitted) meant something else but when a Republican (Bush) blundered in a similar fashion (“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”) the press quickly pointed out the obvious, that he had misspoken. The Democrats unfortunately are incompetent in the PR game. Armey and Reynolds made their admissions BEFORE the elections but the Dems apparently DIDN’T make anything of this (I can’t be sure since I’m not in the US). Obviously if the Democrats had made similarly deceptive ads and leading Democrats bragged about it Rove and his clones and their spin machines (not to mention Ann Coulter et. al.) would have had a field day.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 17, 2006 13:12:51 GMT -4
Anyone who believes President Bush hasn't paid a heavy price in the press and on the various late night shows for his flubbed lines and statements (he is admitedly not the most eloquent President we have ever had) obviously doesn't live in the US.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Nov 17, 2006 13:45:49 GMT -4
Also, I don't remember from what news outlet I heard about Kerry's flub, but I certainly remember they did give his response and explanation about what he really meant at the same time.
I just think those who want to embarrass him simply choose to ignore that fact. I don't blame the media for that.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Nov 17, 2006 17:47:32 GMT -4
Anyone who believes President Bush hasn't paid a heavy price in the press and on the various late night shows for his flubbed lines and statements (he is admitedly not the most eloquent President we have ever had) obviously doesn't live in the US. I guess so I don't even get regular CNN. Perhaps i was wrong about that aspect. This doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration was dishonest about its intentions in Iraq and evidence they "fixed the intelligence" as not a CT nut but the head of MI-6 put it (as paraphrased) or that Republicans produced extremely deceptive ads and that this was defended (not denied) by two leading members of the party. As for the Kerry quote from what I've seen on other forums few people heard Kerry explanation let alone Armey admiting his comment had been intentionally distorted for political reasons
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 17, 2006 17:59:11 GMT -4
I heard Kerry's explanation and I still think it was a Freudian slip on Kerry's part. Assuming, that is, that the explanation isn't a lie.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Nov 17, 2006 22:42:38 GMT -4
I heard Kerry's explanation and I still think it was a Freudian slip on Kerry's part. Assuming, that is, that the explanation isn't a lie. Armey admitted it was a lie. reynolds also gloated about having intentionally deceptive.
|
|