Here we go again

[mdlbear]

So the Democrats blew it big this time, and the Republicans are once again the Ruling Party.

So now it begins: the war on drugs, terrorism, and the constitution; the war on consumers; the war on the environment -- oh, yeah, the war on Iraq, too. The crusade continues.

And now that Bush knows he has a winning strategy, look for yet another war on an Islamic nation a year and a half from now, when Bush needs a boost in his campaign for another term in the Presidential Palace.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This is just sooooooo funny!

Like any of this is really going to happen. Other than the stock market going up and a few judges getting appointed (key word 'few') don't expect to see any real changes.

Oh, and when were the Republican's the ruling party the last time? Must have missed it! Usually it's been pretty well split, except for when the Democrates were the 'ruling party' as you put it.

hey, anonymous, grow a clue ... or a spine

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

This is rather scary. Before, Bush was reigned in by needing to appear as a moderate and building up public opinion. Now, and for the next two years, Bush has a clear mandate to do whatever he pleases (or at least, whatever the Republican party caucuses will allow him to do.)

It's a republic, the people have the right to do this. _I_ think it's rather stupid to give Bush a blank check after all the damage he's done already. I also think people voted this way because the "fear factor" worked: they're scared of Sept. 11th and terrorism, but they're even _more_ scared that the economy will tank out -- and didn't want to think about it when voting at the polls. You can admit to being scared by a random sniper. You can't admit to being scared of losing your job.

I disagree on one point, though. 18 months from now, the war in Iraq will _still_ be going on . . .

Re: hey, anonymous, grow a clue ... or a spine

[(Anonymous)]

Just like the war in Afganistan is still going on?

Damage? What damage? (Facts only please!)

Last of all, ever hear of a Filibuster? The Republicans needed 60 seats in the Senate to be able to do whatever they want. Guess what? They don't have that! The rules of the Senate are not based on a simple majority. Don't expect to see much change here, the Republican's will still try to get along with the Democrates, and the Democrates will still be partisian.

Re: hey, anonymous, grow a clue ... or a spine

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

If you could drop the cloak of anonymity I might be interested in discussing the matter further. From your comments I have no doubt that you're a Republican partisan and therefore immune to incoming rational thought.

I'll give you just one for free, but it's a big one. The most damaging thing Bush has done is to unilaterally repeal America's no first use policy on nuclear weapons. If there is one thing an American president could do to make nuclear war likely in our lifetimes, that was it.

[figmo.livejournal.com]

The question I have about all this is, "What referendum is this sending the White House?"

Were people voting Republican because they like Dubya and his policies, or were there other factors that are being masked?

For example, when the House and Senate went Republican during the 1980s it wasn't necessarily because people adored Reagan, but because their Democratic leaders were nailed in the Abscam scandal but were still on the ballot. No matter which way folks leaned, they didn't want to elect crooks and thus voted for whatever was on the Republican ticket. The Republican Party likes to claim it was a mandate for Ronald Reagan, but having been from one of those districts, I know otherwise.