So The Dems Kicked Butt - in the House

[beemaster]

Quote (Bill Mahr - extreme Liberal, HBO)

"I pity any country who suddenly find themselves being called a regime by the George W. Bush Administration."

Now... I don't think even the most Conservative member can disagree with THAT statement.

My whole fear is NOT what happened in 2006, but who will have there hats on the table for 2008. Is John McCain really the best hope for the Republicans and do you really think an Obama/Hilary ticket is WHAT YOU WANT on the Democratic side?

Are we really hurting so bad that these are our best of the best to pick from people? I'll agree with Jerrymac   with his idea that a two party system creates a divide and no one is happy with either how we get there or what we get when we do. But we keep rolling on and on, shining a beacon that may need a brighter bulb than it has screwed in it now, but a beacon all the same. God Bless American and all Free Countries of the World. Not to forget the oppressed of the Planet: they, most of all need to see that there are systems that work and strive for the same degree of relative freedoms.

[kathyp]

i think good leadership means that when you attack you have a sound strategy.

   there is one thing certain about warfare and that is that the "plan" usually will not work.  i am certain that we did not plan to have thousands slaughtered on d day.  we did not plan to drop our paratroopers behind enemy lines in France and drown them in the swamps.  we did not plan to lose 1000's taking a rock in the Philippine bay.  even so, we did not quit.  a few good men scaled the cliffs and took out the enemey...a few good men crawled out of the swamps and fought in france... and a few good men, greatly out numbered, took out the Japanese on Corregidor.

just because things don't go according to plan, you do not throw in the towel and give up the fight.  we have done that in the past and the enemy has been emboldened because of it.

i found this a few years ago.  i thought it was a great reminder that there is nothing that happens that has not happened before.  the trick is to learn from history.

http://www.jessicaswell.com/archives/000872.html

it's been fun guys.  gotta get some work done

[randydrivesabus]

i think good leadership means that when you attack you have a sound strategy.

   i thought it was a great reminder that there is nothing that happens that has not happened before.  the trick is to learn from history.

and good leaders will learn.

I'm not real happy with the 2 party system or the choice of candidates either. it always seems to be a vote for bad or worse.

[beemaster]

Deceased Mayor of Philadelphia Frank Rizzo once quoted when asked about the two candidates running after his term was over "This Election, your only choice is to "NOT vote" for the EVIL of TWO LESSERS!" I think you said it well Randy and so did Frank

[Kris^]

But according to the media, this week's election results are a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war "Ned the Red" Lamont).

In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" — especially in the sixth year.

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

ETC.  ETC.

Quoting Ann Coulter??

I'd check it for accuracy before relying on it . . .

-- Kris

[Brian D. Bray]

Elections are won and lost these days on posturing not substance.  We need to demand substance in order to right the ship of state.

[qa33010]

I'll try and keep this nice.

   I usually don't discuss politics or education (I've been told I'm too tough on my views that a school should be measured by how many graduates are prepared for college, not how they did on placement tests or that teaching is more than just having knowledge, you have to be able to reach your students) but I've been disappointed (no Thesaurus to find a better word) by both Dems and Reps.  I don't say that lightly.  I believe that the two party system is here because too many only vote that way.   My family get into heated discussions about both.  My mother is a 'yellow dog' and only believes what they say, everyone else is corrupt as do other family members while the other half believes all dems are corrupt.  Me?  I just read the Sunday paper and see how my  (they are mine whether I voted for them or not) senators and representatives voted.  If bills are shot down or vetoed I want to see what kind of pork was added and by whom.  I've been told that I am quite naive.  

    I believe the government runs better when there is no one party controlling both houses of Congress AND/OR the White House and the only time they run this country better is when they are not in session.   Remember, they're supposed to work for us.

There's my half a penny.

David

[beemaster]

David:

What wasn't NICE about that? We should expect our children to learn, not just be test savvy. We should expect our teachers to ready them for higher learning, not just squeak by on some sliding scale that pits afluent schools with those in inner-city schools.

We should see Democrats and Republicans in powerful positions within a Whitehouse no matter what the affiliation of the Executive leader - only the best of the best, not the best of the party should be in cabinette positions, but instead we hear every President who loses the Legislative branches call for Bi-Partisanship when making the laws of the land. I think it at that point when all fails: no-one works openly without bias toward the non-controlling party, no matter how logical their ideas may be, BECAUSE each time the Congress swings power, the new party in control plays CATCH-UP. Every change over is the chance to restore things the way they ere, rarely to make it better - sadly, that is what happens and we rarely see change - no matter who is in power, it is like we are always pulling out dirty underwear and putting it back on rather then grabbing fresh clothes from the closet.

It is a table-tennis game where Dems serve the ball until the Repubs score and then volley changes. In the mean time, ammendments are scripted (actually all changes in law and landscape are well prepared for submission in the even a party shift occurs) and then much of the following years, the key players try to undo what the previous leadership tried undoing from the past opposive Congress.

So it is always 2 steps back and rarely one step forward. I have a mental problem digesting such different philosophies, how could Americans divide so different on topics that involve its own people?

I agree that there are only two major parties because no one seems to think a third, forth, fifth party could win consistantly enough to expect control. Having indendants or Liberatarians, Socialists, etc., in the government in a rag-tag representation for any or several states does little to change or swing votes on any issue. Having a controlling third party is far from a pipe-dream, so it tends to stop there.

I would pose those that there must be GREAT LEADERSHIP out there somewhere without the affiliation of the two big-boys on the block. But Washington is a battle for TURF and the stakes are always high. The closest person I saw to making a difference (albeit a bad one) was Ross Perot, who I thought had a great following, much more than Enviroment and Consumer Activist Ralph Nadar who always seemed like a zombie, even when he was younger. Parot's big mistake was dragging James Stockdale (prisoner of war, as was John McCain) before the cameras: Stockdale was old and deaf and non-responsive and killed any chance of Perot moving on.

I look forward to the 2008 elections and all that leads up to it. A strong and young carasmatic man like Barack Obama knows he is going to run, he's just waiting for the dust to settle from this election. I could however wait on seeing Hillary debate - although she does a pretty good job of it (I watched her in the re-election debates for Senate) I think Obama would mop the floor with her. But the interesting thing is, these two won't trash each other, they will though trash the others who toss their hats in the ring. Obama and Hillary are going to be the Dems. answer to the Oval Office in 2008 and I don't expect anything to get in their way.

With McCain a front runner on the Repub's side, I can only imagine if the U.S. is ready to put an older candidate in the Oval Office - I think that ended with the Reagan Era. So that means, between now and mid 2007 the Repubs need to find a strong and young candidate capable of standing up to the dems. ultimate fighting machine. I haven't seen a face on the horizon yet, have you?

Hold on to your seats, hope we see someone come out that has more middle of the road conservative ideas, yet still spouts the Rightwing values that will satisfy the Conservatives, yet be enough left to sway the majority of us who fall somewhere in the middle.

If nothing else, I'm hoping for a close battle, I can't see (at least now) the Repubs. rewinning the Whitehouse. There is a snowball rolling and it is called Iraq and the new Congress will milk it for all it is worth, using their air-time on C-SPAN and all the news networks to bash what is left of the right-wing party. This is NOT how I like it, it is just how I see it.