fett on 8/11/2006 at 18:39
I'll take anything I can get at this point.
Chimpy Chompy on 8/11/2006 at 18:41
I thought Rumsfeld is himself one of the puppeteers? (and Bush more the puppet)
Agent Monkeysee on 8/11/2006 at 18:57
Yeah StD is seriously underestimating Rumsfeld's influence over the conduct of the Iraq War. The whole "lean mean" fighting force ideology and the chopping of anyone who proposed that maybe we need an exit plan was 100% Rumsfeld. The guy is not an empty suit. *Bush* is an empty suit.
Quote Posted by demagogue
Re: the Democrat victory, what are we talking about the most important impacts? I was reading the front-burner issue was immigration (Iraq is sort of it's own quagmire I'm not sure anything is speeding up pull-out as a practical matter, but hard to tell.) ... so now we're scaling back the anti-immigration measures pushed for in the recent past, easing somewhat the integration of Latin Americans into the economy. Right? I'm not sure tax policy will change soo much; it will change but not by much. What else is the practical fall-out here?
Pelosi says the primary focus out of the gate will be immigration, minimum wage, Medicare prescription drug revamps, and Congressional corruption. Iraq is obviously the elephant in the room but realisitically speaking Congress can't pull a 180 on our conduct in that area anyway. They'll probably begin pushing for better oversight, a degree of phased reduction in troops, and, hopefully, investigations into the Administration's activities but that may end up being the third rail this session.
BEAR on 8/11/2006 at 19:04
Plus it weakens their position alot. The administration has been denying that rumsfeld would step down at any point, and denied that the war was going as holy-fuckingly bad as it is, now they can hardly stick with that.
Also: anyone who voted 3rd party and thinks that they are in ANY WAY trying to get rid of "more of the same" really is a fucking moron, because thats exactly what they will be working to do, in that they will get more of what we have now because they are taking a vote from the ONLY other party that can win.
Generally and idealistically, I would LOVE to see a 3rd party that would offer REAL change in America, sadly at this time it isn't remotely possible. If you voted for a 3rd party you are taking a stand, which is somewhat commendable, but on the other hand you are risking letting those who are in power stay in power, which is the exact opposite of what you really want. There is a word for that: a tendency of something to become its opposite, and I wanted to use it but my spelling of it was sooo poor that even google's mighty powers could not find it.
Rug Burn Junky on 8/11/2006 at 19:07
Quote Posted by demagogue
I'm not sure tax policy will change soo much; it will change but not by much. What else is the practical fall-out here?
First and foremost: Lobbying reform.
I think that is one of the first things on the table that will have drastic effects, even if they are mostly invisible to people day to day.
I agree that the tax policy is unlikely to change much, but it does probably take the estate tax repeal off the table.
Control of the Senate gives leverage with judicial nominations, and god forbid Stevens dies/retires in the next two years, can help prevent another extreme ideologue from joining the court. That is a tangible long term benefit.
The grotesque medicare prescription drug coverage is going to be in for a serious overhaul.
Increase in minimum wage.
9/11 commission recommendations will actually be put through.
Balancing the budget. Eventually. (this one is the laugher, since that was the one real positive that grew out of the '94 Republican revolution. To need an overhaul to do it again :rolleyes: )
An actual dialogue into the conduct of the war going forward. No more of "The Decider" and the administration can actually be held accountable.
I happen to think that, while it is somewhat political show, the subpoena power into the war is meaningful. There have been real abuses of power by this administration, and that may be the most lasting damaging legacy of W. Not the war itself, but this Unitary Executive crap, and it's necessary to shed some light on it.
Most importantly though, it puts the brakes on additional Bad Ideas™ like privatizing social security, federal gay marriage grandstanding and the like.
Stitch on 8/11/2006 at 19:07
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
Yeah StD is seriously underestimating Rumsfeld's influence over the conduct of the Iraq War. The whole "lean mean" fighting force ideology and the chopping of anyone who proposed that maybe we need an exit plan was 100% Rumsfeld. The guy is not an empty suit. *Bush* is an empty suit.
Exactly. The Iraq War is basically Rumsfeld's baby from top to bottom, with babysitting duties provided by Cheney.
Jesus, I'm giddy. When my (now ex-)girlfriend left the country forever last week and my car got broken into on Saturday night, I flipped off the heavens and said, "YOU FUCKERS OWE ME BIG TIME."
Paid back with interest :cool:
Edit: also, this thread is totally making me miss ICQ because then RBJ, Starry, and I could all celebrate in REALTIME
Pyrian on 8/11/2006 at 19:23
Quote Posted by demagogue
Re: the Democrat victory, what are we talking about the most important impacts?
Subpoena power
could be huge. A lot of us are thinking that there's a LOT of slime still under the surface in Capitol Hill; unrestrained power often produces such corruption as we've already seen, and I for one think there's more to be found. Personally, I'm particularly interested in the human rights abuses of the "war on terror".
Legislatively, well, obviously the Republicans have been checked but Bush is likely to suddenly find his all-but-missing veto pen. There's a good chance that the stem cell legislation he already vetoed will now be able to override him, and I doubt he'll risk vetoing the 9/11 Commission legislation Pelosi's promising, so we might see those go through. I'm guessing, however, that Bush will successfully block any rollback of his tax cuts or of the prescription meds plan. Thus, higher deficits... Sigh. :p
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
But even more important than that, allowing one party to control ALL of the basic governmental safeguards is more fundamentally against your interests than having dispersed power amongst two parties,
even if you agree with neither party.
I would further argue that the less you agree with either party the more stake you have in gridlock.
The primary value of voting for a third party is in sending a message. I wouldn't consider that a complete waste, but the libertarian party simply doesn't do it for me in that regard; even when I agree in their
direction, which I usually do, I find them far too extreme.
dreamcatcher on 8/11/2006 at 19:47
Quote Posted by Dr Sneak
II will never vote for a
Redtardion or Democrap again
ahem, actually it's spelled Repugnican. just sayin'.
ScaryMike23 on 8/11/2006 at 20:41
Our hands are in the aaair, waving like we just don't Caaare!
Used to be a lower case g, now we're a big G, hundred dolla bills ya-all!
Nicker on 8/11/2006 at 21:15
As a Canuck I offer my congratulations and thanks. I take the celebratory mood south of the 49th as a good sign but considering the incompetence of the administration, hints of criminality, dead soldiers, GWB and what seemed like huge dissatisfaction of the voters I was expecting a larger margin of victory.
Can someone from down there explain if this margain is more significant than it appears or is this a case of "we'll take whatever victory we can get"?
Ta very much.
