Slashdot Mirror
Democrats Take House, Senate Undecided
Every news publication on earth is saying mostly the same thing. The Democrats have taken the house picking up a sizable number of seats. But the Senate remains a tossup with a few undecided seats holding the balance. Concerns of voter fraud have been heard from around the nation as well.
Actually, the three branches of the US government are: Executive, Legislative and Judical.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
The Republicans owned all three branches of the government--House, Senate & Presidential seat.
Um... the three branches are the Executive (the president heads up this branch, and it includes the military, all of the various agencies headed up by his appointed cabinet memebers, etc), the Judicial (the courts, which are populated with career-long judges that are typically in office well past the duration of the administration that nominated them, which usually means a pretty mixed group, philosophically), and the Legislative (which happens to have the Congress and the Senate as its two main parts).
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It should read, "Concerns of election fraud..."
Voter fraud is people voting under false identities. It rarely happens. Election fraud is the kind of mass voter suppression and dubious vote counting we've been seeing in this country. Even the most celebrated examples of "voter fraud" are really election fraud, such as Chicago Mayor Daley allegedly engineered dead people voting for JFK.
There's more to holding a House majority than passing bills. The most important thing, especially in the House (rather than the Senate) is that the majority party gets to decide the rules of order. The Democrats will now have the chair of every House committee, Speaker Pelosi will have the power to decide what bills even make it to the floor. Having the chair of all the committees, the Democrats will be able to exert Congressional oversight that has been sorely lacking since Bush came to office. In short, Democrats in the House will be able to frustrate the President's agenda, and likely make his final two years very embarassing.
Tip #2: My belief is that the end-of-year-rally will continue, and October 2006 to October 2007 will be a good year in the market (with most of the gains early). If I recall correctly, it almost always is, in years of the mid-term elections.
Tip #3: One stock prediction you can rely on: "It will fluctuate."
>> the Legislative (which happens to have the Congress and the Senate as its two main parts).
Uh, actually the Legislative branch is the Congress, which consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Congress has two houses (House and Senate) because of a compromise reached when the U.S. Constitution was written. All states, regardless of population, have two Senators, so each state has equal representation in the Senate. The number of Representatives for each state in the House is determined by the population of each state. If there are more people in your state, you have more representatives in the House, thus ensuring representation proportional to the number of people in the state.
1) Lag between policies and stock performance
2) Lack of adjustment for inflation
3) Small sample size
4) Lack of a mechanism (without which, correlation isn't causation)
5) Many non-repeatable events that affect performance (9/11, oil embargo, etc)
And so on. In particular, Clinton doesn't deserve credit for sitting on the run-up of the dot com bubble and happening to get out right before it crashed (the market was cresting and heading for descent right as he left). I don't blame him either, however, so this isn't a partisan thing.
In short, I wouldn't say there's sufficient evidence either way, but as a statistically-minded scientist, I have a serious hatred of studies like the one you cite claiming statistically-unsupported conclusions.
Bu the judicial branch can't decied on the laws untill it hits the court room. .. But remember one new law.. they don't have to let you ever see a court room.. they can hold you without trial or charges for aslong as they fucking want.. the judicial branch can't do shit because that law isn't hitting the court room
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
You don't understand: The election districts have been so gerrymandered (by both the Democrats and the Republicans) that the number of seats where it is thought to be even theoretically possible to defeat the incumbent of each party is generally considered to be less than 10% of the total seats. For the Democrats to take 4-6 Senate seats (out of only 33 up for election this year) and 28-30 House seats without losing a single seat of their own is an absolutely stunning thing.
Pollsters had characterized this election as a irresistible force (the 'tsunami' of public opinion against the Bush and the Republicans) vs the immovable object (the incredibly rigged system of incumbent protecting districts plus the advantages of incumbency in getting re-elected in general). Apparently the immovable object wasn't quite as immovable as the Republicans had hoped.
He didn't invent this practice, so don't give him so much credit. Also, it is incredibly un-democratic for a single ruler to be able to manipulate the law to the extent that Bush has. Here are some sample statements he added from the Boston Globe. If these don't make your blood boil, you truely are a moron - or really believe that Bush is the incarnation of Jesus.
March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.
Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.
Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."
Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.
Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.
Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.
Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.
Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)
Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.
Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.
Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.
Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.
Bush's signing
http://www.coderoshi.com/
Anyone can write a bill. Only a Congressman or Senator can sponsor it for submition. If it makes it through committe they vote on it, and if it passes it goes to the other house. If it passes there it goes to the President who either signs it or vetos it. If it is vetoed then the houses of congress have a chance to override the President and pass the bill into law, but it requires a 66% majority, not a simple majority.
If either VA or MT go to the Republican, Sen Liberman is just another moderate Democrat. If both VA or MT go for the Democrats, he could hold the balance of power in the Senate.
Oddly, I find him to straddle the fence. Some here will say he only agrees with the administration on Iraq. However, he is still on board with vouchers, limitation of punitive damages in liability cases, he's back and forth on affirmative action, he's for content restriction, he's for parental consent. Now, he's not neocon in any of those issues, and I tend to agree at least partially with those stances. He can never be part of the Republican mainstream, as he's primarily pro-choice and not a homophobe.
Overall, he rides to either side of the middle, never really straying too far. That's a Good Thing(TM), imo, but I tend to be a moderate (though a registered D).
Still, he could find a place on the Right if the stakes were high enough. Remember that a senate term is 6 years, so he may be happy ending his career in 2012 and not really care about the reelection politics. Keeping him in check (in addition to not selling out some of his personal beliefs) is the possibility that the Dems could take the Senate in '08, giving him only 2 years to savor his revenge.
I think he'll stay a D, but I also think he's got some real capital, should he want to spend it.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
You obviously don't understand what he means by a signing statement. Essentially, with every bill he has signed during his two terms, Bush has been attaching a little letter that says, "I can ignore this law whenever it suits me." Seriously, I would wager less than 1 in 100 citizens in the U.S. even know about these letters.
This is a president with absolutely no respect for anyone other than himself and what he thinks is right, either that or someone that has been totally manipulated by some unknown group or entity into a unilateral form of government.
I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)
Stock futures are down big this morning, as happens after almost every democratic win. I believe NASDAQ is down 20+ and Dow is down 40+.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
There are actually two independent senators now, Lieberman and Vermont's Bernie Sanders. Either one is just as capable of switching sides. Also, as the Australian Senate is showing, when the balance is very narrow, some senators grow a pair and actually vote for what they think is best for their state, and not just their party.
Considering Phlebas, whoever the hell he is.
George "macaca" Allen hasn't been declared a loser yet. He's in one of those 'too close to call' races.
Just so we're clear: it is not hard in America to become an influential lobbyist *or* the staffer for a Congressperson, if you were so inclined.
...
I've worked on a campaign for a state legislator - the people at the top (the consultants who end up on congressional staff, the directors, etc) are mostly just like me, but with two differences: they were a lot more involved in politics throughout college (running for Student Senate, joining groups, etc) and most of them were eager beaver, suit-wearing boring clods. (Not that I'm not boring or a clod, but they took the cake.)
The people who get on national campaigns are only slightly more respectable. Add in a law degree and you can be a lobbyist, too.
In fact, here's a simple 10 Step Process To Becoming a Congressional Staffer:
1) In high school, be "politically" active. Run for student government, be a joiner, do the club thing (be President of at least one), join FBLA. Also, learn Spanish. And actually learn it, don't just sit in the classes.
2) Become an Eagle Scout. It's ridiculously easy, and it's great for networking. For girls, do a lot of volunteer work.
3) In college, repeat: join a lot of clubs, run for student government.
4) Write for your college newspaper. Especially the political section. If the main newspaper won't take you, right for one of the student-run alternatives. Or start your own (even better!)
5) Get a degree in political science with a minor in communications. Any liberal arts degree will do, but political science is as an easy way to
6) Network within your university. Ask all of your teachers and advisors about internships and positions on campaigns and staff.
7) Get involved in real politics around your college. Volunteer for the Democratic or Republican party headquarters in your area. Attend townhall meetings and generally get your name out there (business cards are great.) At actual elections, sign up to be a poll worker (you get paid $150 in Texas to do this.)
8) Once you've graduated, head to your party headquarters with your hat in your hand, and ask for a job on a staff. They will hook you up (I worked on 3 campaigns before switching fields.)
9) Focus on what you're really good at within the campaign. Good at math? Crunch poll numbers and offer strategies on how to be more efficient with your campaigning. Good at IT? Build websites, manage e-mail newsletters, keep track of donors, create systems to manage the campaign. Good with people? Be the PR flak, or coordinate the volunteers. Good with words? Be a speechwriter. Find your strength and hone in on it.
10) Wait 10 years. By the time you're 30, you'll be in a Congressional office, as long as you don't totally screw up. And even then, all of that networking will probably get you something cushy.
This strategy absolutely worked for me up to stage 8, when I decided I'd rather build websites for regular people and businesses than campaigns.
Over the past few years, the Republicans (normally Whigoids, to UKers) have turned the political process into a tribalist scrum rather than an informed debate. The Democrats (normally Toryoids, to UKers) have been completely locked out of the process -- many bills are forced to a vote by the leading party, without even having been debated in the full chamber, and many bills are drafted and revised in closed chambers that Democrats have literally not been allowed to enter. The Republicans have made use of their power over the process, to pass any damnned bill that crosses their minds, whether or not it agrees with their nominal party platform.
Republicans "traditionally" stand for limited government and fiscal responsibility, but over the past few years we have seen drastic increases in the legislated power of the executive branch over the people, including measures that can only be described as fascist. You may not pay much attention to our federal budget from the U.K. but our federal budget deficit is the worst in history due to extremely imprudent spend-but-don't-tax policies passed by the current round of Republicans, to the point that many economists have predicted third-world style hyperinflation of the U.S. dollar.
Meanwhile, the Democrats "traditionally" stand for more socialist policies and larger government, and have a long-term reputation for deficit spending -- but the Clintonian democrats of the 1990s were able to rein in spending to the point (with the help of moderate Republicans then in office) they were able to balance the federal budget. That was a task nobody had accomplished since World War 2.
The Republicans position themselves as supporting traditional moral values, particularly as regards sexual issues, while the Democrats position themselves as supporting individual choice of lifestyle --- but lately the Republicans seem to be the ones getting mired in scandal and having problems with personal debauchery (wife-strangling, homosexual page-fucking, and the like).
So if you're a bit confused over there, well, so are we! There's a major shift happening in U.S. politics, due in large part to the wilful self-destruction of the Republican platform and the moderation of the Democrat platform.
You seem to be trying to be sarcastic, so I'm not sure you remember the Patriot Act was pushed through Congress in a matter of days. There are many statements from congressional staffers saying that basically nobody had time to even read the bill since it was so huge, but the Presdient wanted it passed, so everyone lined up and passed it. There was basically no discussion or debate whatsoever before the Patriot Act was passed, it was only after the fact that anyone could read the darn thing and see how much bad stuff had been put in by the Executive, some of which were allowed to expire when the act went up for renewal.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
While they officially list Virginia and Montana as "undecided" in this data, browsing their individual county figures shows all districts 100% in with both states.
The smallest margin is montana with roughly 2000 votes lead for the democratic candidate.
Barring an upset in a recount (which has been judged by expert analysts to be highly unlikely in leads over the hundreds) and the conclusion you come to is they essentially have only formalities standing between them and official control of the senate.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Well, we know one tenant about the govt.....they WILL spend evey cent given to them.
In the past, knowing this, the only way to cut govt. spending, was to cut off the source...tax monies. You cut off the funds, it forces them to cut spending.
However, for some reason, this does not seem to be working with this administration.....what happened to the Republicans of old with fiscal responsibility...or at least attempting to promote such. These guys spend money like a crack whore that just hit the lottery....
Something needs to be done to force a cut on spending....hell, for one thing, if they redid the medicare drug legislation, to use the power of the govt. to bargain for drugs...that alone would take a huge chunk out of spending....that last try was just a gift to the drug industry.
Anyway, they tax us way too much as it is....we need to demand more ROI of our taxes. Remember, it is OUR money. A surplus is not a good thing either...that means they are taking too much of my money...something I can better spend myself.
I'm hoping that maybe...just maybe with the many Dem.s that won seats....they seem to be more centrist that the liberal Dems of the recent past...maybe they will have a fiscal concious, that will look to cut pork, rather than dig deeper into our collective pockets.
I am totally against a wealth redistribution system of taxing Peter, to give to Paul.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
ummm... take a US government class, please. There are a lot of people besides congress who can write bills. The president is one of them.
+5, Truth
Congress can override his veto. That's what makes Congress more powerful than a president: Congress can make laws which direct the government without the president's cooperation. While the president cannot make laws, or execute actions contrary to laws, without Congress.
Of course, laws and the Constitution often mean nothing to Bush. He runs on a Unitary Executive theory, more than any "Conservative" or other political "ideology". But with a rubberstamp Republican Congress, Bush has been able to get away with monopoly power unopposed. Now we will see what happens when he defies Congress and the Constitution, facing an opposition party that he has turned into the most polarized party in our lifetimes.
He can't veto Impeachment Articles.
--
make install -not war
Six years of signing statements
hinderfreude ('hin-dur-"froi-d&), n. The feeling of joy derived from being in the way.
How is this a conservative agenda? Every important item in your list is about telling others how to live! A true conservative agenda is that basically people should be as free as possible from government interference.
Government should be minimal. People should be free to pursue life, liberty and happiness - remember that line?
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Exactly. The whole problem is that we don't have the patience anymore to see things out. Having friends who are serving in Iraq, they write friends weekly about all the good things that happen over there. And some of the bad things (people injured, etc).
Nancy P. is going to be scary. I really think that she will be all about blame, and she will try (and fail) to bring international troops into Iraq. I expect she will demand the Defense Secs resign, and the President will say no, and then the battle between Congress and the President will begin....with the witch hunts and blame game.
Like we really need more of this.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
This is simply false, or at the very least requires a bizarre and tendentious definition of "results". The ESC-derived therapy currently in human clinical trials, a late stage of research that requires quite a lot of "research results" first, is evidence of this.
False, again. There has been, as well as public investment, considerable private investment in embryonic stem cell research, as indicated here: "Embryonic stem cells show great therapeutic potential but stir controversy because human embryos must be destroyed to retrieve them. State and private investments have recently driven the field to new heights of activity, but political deadlocks have made federal oversight all but nonexistent."
By and large, no, neither the old nor the new Democrats in Congress are. sure, a few of each group are, but the majority of the new and the old are not.
Yes, actually, I did, and too more than just a few that were profiled on TV because the media wanted to focus on the South because the question of the Republicans retaining their hold their promised to make an interesting storyline one way or the other. Apparently, you didn't pay much attention (and you probably don't have much idea about Nancy Pelosi's ideals besides GOP scare-tactic talking points.)
Um, yeah, which is why I said that the Democratic majority that takes office in January 2007 will last a little under 1 year before "2008 rolls around", but closer to 22 months if, by that phrase, you meant the elections in November.
Which isn't really relevant unless by "by the time 2008 rolls around" you meant "by the time January 2009 rolls around", which would be a particularly bizarre use of the phrase.
In either case, none of the factors you pointed to, in any case, should make you wonder how long the Democratic majority will last "by the time 2008 rolls around", whatever you meant by that, since any of those can be answered by looking at a calendar without any wondering.
Perhaps you mean to say that it makes you wonder how long that majority would last after the 2008 elections, which would make some sense.
How is this a conservative agenda? Every important item in your list is about telling others how to live! A true conservative agenda is that basically people should be as free as possible from government interference.
You are confusing "conservative" with libertarian (or "classical liberal", or sometimes even just "liberal" though it's more of a 18th century meaning of the word) which means "that basically people should be as free as possible from government interference". thus "liberal" as in "liberty".
Conservative on the other hand means you like things the way they are or used to be in the fairly recent past. You want to "conserve" what is good about society and you are pessimistic about the likely benefits of proposed reforms. It's essentially political pessimism, or if you prefer, humility. A belief that society is unknowably complex and grand changes to our social structures even when they sound good on their face are likely to have unintended bad consequences. Conservatism in this sense has been described as an "antiideology" because the policies it defends may not be logically consistent (since it's just the way things happen to be, not as they would be if they reflected a coherent political ideology)
The united states was founded on liberal (in the old sense of the word) principles so conservatives in America tend to be defending classically liberal policies and ideas, and to adhere to a classically liberal political philosophy (albeit inconsistently). Opposing gay marriage, which is a pretty radical change to *very* long-standing social convention in the name of a logically consistent egalitarian political ideology is very rightly called "conservative". Abortion is less about liberal/conservative in this sense since the nature of the government intrusion involved is one that even the most libertarian would agree is within the proper sphere of government intrusion (protecting someone from bodily harm). The point of disagreement is about whether or not unborn children are entitled to that protection. You can be a perfectly logically consistent hyper-libertarian and still be pro-life if you are of the conviction that unborn children are entitled to that government protection.
I can't speak for all signatories, but in *my* Army, the Convention is taken very VERY seriously with enormous penalties for those who violate it.
If I caught any of my guys violating the Convention, particularly the sections on the mistreating of prisoners, I'd nail their ass to the wall, and I expect my chain of command would support that.
The Convention isn't just a nice idea; it's the LAW.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
How about this: http://blog.pdamerica.org/?p=346 or this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/20/politics /main1731579.shtml
Good enough?